Tube Noise

Tony Devenish: As you are aware, thousands of my constituents are suffering from excessive Tube noise in their homes. How soon can those constituents expect that suffering to end?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I know time is short. I will write a longer response to the Assembly Member to allow him to ask his supplementary question in relation to Tube noise.

Tony Devenish: Thank you very much, Mr Mayor, and thank the Deputy Mayor for what work she has been doing. We have had a step change from TfL in recent months but I was very concerned with a Ham & High article of 9October[2019], where a National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) source was quoted as saying they may be taking away the track fastening Pandrol Vanguard that has been so helpful. I will not ask you to answer that question now but could you write to me and tell me whether or not they are going to remove that? It would be a disaster for certain lines when actually progress has been made in recent months. Please do not take away that very useful product.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, can I agree to write to the Assembly Member? Tube noise is causing real misery to many of his constituents and he is concerned about the consequences of the point made. I will write to him. Also, should I copy in all --

Jennette Arnold: Yes.

Sadiq Khan: I will copy in all the Assembly in relation to the answer, if that is OK.

Tony Devenish: Thank you.

Hammersmith Bridge

Tony Devenish: Are you leaving no stone unturned to ensure that Hammersmith Bridge is re-opened to motorised vehicles as soon as humanly possible?

Sadiq Khan: Great. Deputy Chair, TfL is working with and on behalf of Hammersmith and Fulham Council to reopen the bridge to motorised traffic as soon as possible. As the Council announced at the end of the summer, the work is currently expected to take around three years. TfL has allocated £25million to ensure the design work began straight away and to allow some vital preliminary works to take place in the coming works.
HammersmithBridge is an iconic and historic London landmark and repairing it will be technically challenging. The bridge’s complex construction, its Grade II* listing and its materials, iron and timber, all restrict the repair options. On top of this there are numerous other considerations, including maintaining an accessible walking and cycling crossing and a navigable river.
While refurbishing the bridge involves considerable technical unknowns and risks, TfL is exploring every possible way of completing the work as safely and efficiently as possible. This includes a temporary foot and cycle bridge which would allow work on the bridge to proceed uninterrupted while ensuring people can still walk and cycle across the river here. TfL and the Council are currently reviewing the feasibility and the cost of the temporary bridge and will be in a position to make a decision in the coming months. The design for the full repair of the bridge is being developed in parallel.
As I have already said, some important preliminary works will take place in the next few months. This will stabilise areas of high stress on the bridge, including the areas where the microfractures were found earlier this year. This stabilisation work will allow the heavier repair works to be safely carried out when the design is ready. My Deputy Mayor for Transport and TfL are in contact with the DfT, Heritage England and the Bridge House Estates Trust seeking their support for getting the bridge renovated and reopened as quickly as possible. They will also continue working closely with the Council to identify funding for the work so that a contract for this can be let next spring. In the meantime TfL is doing everything possible to minimise the impact of the closure of the bridge, including making changes to the local bus network and providing an enhanced dial-a-ride facility to improve links for people affected by the closure.

Tony Devenish: Thank you. Mr Mayor, are you aware that the marine engineering company Beckett Rankine has proposed a £5million temporary bridge that could be built in just three months and run parallel to the existing bridge? How seriously are you taking this proposal?

Sadiq Khan: I saw the article in the magazine earlier this week and I am sure this will be considered by those looking at the works that have been done. I will double-check and make sure that they have this but I am sure they have because if I have seen it I am sure the engineers have as well.

Tony Devenish: Could you please ask that the Deputy Mayor for Transport responds before the next Mayoral Question on this? Clearly we cannot wait until November2022 just to open the existing bridge. We have to do something to improve things for our residents.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, can I suggest that I get TfL to respond on the merits of this application directly to the Assembly Member? Every stone is being looked under to see if there are options we can pursue. Nothing has been ruled out. I cannot comment on the technical feasibility of this particular scheme. I will make sure someone from TfL does respond to the Assembly Member.

Tony Devenish: Thank you.

Tony Arbour: Thank you.

Operation Yellowhammer

Andrew Dismore: Now the Operation Yellowhammer document has been made fully public, what is your assessment of the stress to London’s economic, community and civil resilience from the UK leaving the EU without a deal?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. Since the prospect of leaving the EU without a deal threatened over a year ago, City Hall and the London Resilience Forum have been planning for the event of a no-deal Brexit, but this has been seriously hindered by the Government’s unwillingness to share information. Yellowhammer was released only as a result of a leak. It makes for grim reading in itself but there is still a lot of information the Government will not share. We do not have any of the detail underlying the planning assumptions and we do not know what plans the Government has to mitigate the problems it has identified.
In this culture of secrecy, agencies have spoken out publicly. Last week the Chair of the British Medical Council said that there is no sign of who is going to provide emergency transport services for critical medicines and medical supplies or extra freight capacity to guarantee patients can continue to get drugs they need in the event of no deal. Numerous reports illustrate how no deal will particularly affect the vulnerable with price rises in essential goods pushing more people into poverty. We have asked for assurances that the Government will provide hardship funds but none has been forthcoming.
Last month I met MichaelGove [Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster] to try to unlock this issue. He committed to help and the restrictions placed on some key planning documents have now been loosened. This is welcome, but with 14 days to go we desperately need more information from the Government.
Despite these difficulties, we continue to plan as well as we can. Last week I convened a Mayoral Advisory Group bringing together key agencies to discuss the potential impacts of a no-deal Brexit on London and, from Monday, we will have the Strategic Co-ordination Groups meeting twice a week with the option of scaling these up to daily if required.

Andrew Dismore: Thank you for that. Would you agree, therefore, that the Operation Yellowhammer document is remarkable for what it does not cover? Do you consider that it provides enough information for Local Resilience Forums to make contingency plans, bearing in mind that there are other ornithologically named Government papers about no deal that have been kept secret? Operation Kingfisher about the impact on business was recently leaked to The Sunday Times and states that only businesses for which distress or loss of investment would be economically critical would be given extra support so that only the largest businesses will be eligible for Government help. According to an internal Cabinet Office report last month, only 37% of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) have made sufficient or in some cases any preparations for a no-deal Brexit. Should this Operation Kingfisher paper also be published?

Sadiq Khan: Absolutely. Look, let us park for a second the difference in views between the Government and me in relation to the merits and demerits of Brexit. You can park that. The key thing is to make sure we are as ready as we can be for the possible consequences. What I have said to the Government through MichaelGove is that there needs to be a spirit of co-operation in relation to making sure the key agencies can prepare as well as they can do - and that includes businesses in relation to fresh produce - to make sure we mitigate against any possible consequences. That is why it is really important for them to share the information with us.

Andrew Dismore: Then there is the Operation Snow Bunting paper about the police response, also not published, and Ministers are reported to have voiced concerns that overstretched police officers from the cities will be sent to help with transport problems affecting the Channel ports. One Cabinet source is reported as saying, “I cannot believe we are planning to take officers off the street at a time of rising knife crime”. There are also plans to deploy police in and around supermarkets for fear of panic-buying for food causing chaos. Then, as has been mentioned, on Tuesday we heard from Deputy Commissioner SirStephenHouse [QPM] who confirmed at the Police and Crime Committee (PCC) that key crimefighting tools would be lost and their replacements would not be as effective. He explained in detail why we will be less safe as a result.

Sadiq Khan: Clearly, somebody in Government is a keen birdwatcher. We have Yellowhammer, Kingfisher, Snow Bunting and Black Swan.
Let us assume for a second that there are operational sensitivities why this information cannot be released to the public. They should at least be shared with the agencies, the police and the authorities, but they have not been. The problem is the Government is working in silos and sometimes some departments do not know what other departments know.
I want to say to the Government, look, like I said, park the differences we have and let us try to work together to make sure we address some of the concerns you have articulated. By the way, these are from the leaks and so we know the Government has made underlying planning assumptions. Work with us to make sure we can do what we can to mitigate the worst excesses of a no-deal Brexit.

Andrew Dismore: The other secret paper we know about is Operation Black Swan, apparently setting out the worst-case scenario about events that could come as a surprise and could have huge repercussions. Is this the most important of all and should it be published? If there is a second referendum - which, like you, I hope there is - should the public have the full picture, including what is contained in all these and any other ornithologically named documents?

Sadiq Khan: Absolutely. What the public should be given is all the facts and all the information. We now know not in abstract terms what leaving the EU would mean but actually what it means in reality. Now that we know what leaving the EU means, the terms of exit and the consequences, we can decide to accept that path or we can decide to remain in the EU, imperfect as it is.

Andrew Dismore: Thank you.

Supporting Businesses

Gareth Bacon: Are you proud of your record on supporting London’s businesses?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I hope it is not the last question he asks as an Assembly Member. I have enjoyed our tussles and I am hoping, even if he is selected as the candidate, he comes back to the next Mayor’s Question Time to ask a question next month as well.
I am extremely proud of my record in supporting London’s businesses notwithstanding the huge uncertainty and other challenges around Brexit and the Government’s handling of this. Since my mayoralty London’s economy has gone from strength to strength. London’s economic output has increased by 6.1%, there has been an increase of 295,000 jobs and unemployment has fallen from 6% to 4.6%.
Two years ago, I launched the London Growth Hub, a one-stop shop that delivers online and face-to-face business support. To date the Hub has supported over 4,000 microbusinesses, social enterprises and SMEs through its events and support programmes. Over 700 businesses from across London have attended our roadshows and last week I welcomed 200 businesses to City Hall, where I announced the Growth Hub would be opening five physical sites in Vauxhall, Hammersmith, Woolwich, Croydon and Tottenham.
Following the success of the London Co-Investment Fund, which under my mayoralty has become one of the most diverse funds, 20% of co-founders of the portfolio companies are black and minority ethnic and 22% have female co-founders, which is significantly more than the UK average of 9%. I launched my Greater London Investment Fund in May this year, the largest of its kind ever created by CityHall. The £100million fund will support over 170 companies and create 3,500 jobs in London over its lifetime.
Last year my Deputy Mayor for Business, RajeshAgrawal, hosted roundtables with minority ethnic women and disabled entrepreneurs and business owners, who can face particular barriers in business. In response to issues they highlighted, I have established a new programme designed to help these Londoners access entrepreneurship and improve their enterprise skills.
Through London & Partners the Business Growth Programme provides bespoke business support to tech and creative SMEs in London such as mentoring and courses on access to finance and marketing, and the Mayor’s International Business Programme assists scale-ups in London to go global. The programme has supported more than 800 companies and has created over 1,573 jobs, secured £193million in export wins and generated £486million of investment. I think you will agree, Chair, all these are things to be proud of.

Gareth Bacon: Thank you very much for that answer, Mr Mayor. I want to focus on one particular business and the reason is because activities by one of the GLA family group are posing an existential threat to that business. I want to get your thoughts on it.
In February of this year, in The Architects’ Journal, Cargiant was quoted talking about the OPDC scheme for regeneration in the west of London. Cargiant’s Managing Director, TonyMendes, is quoted as saying,
“In just four years the OPDC has already spent £30million of public money and we are gravely concerned that it is now seeking £250million more even though the comprehensive development of the area is currently unviable, unaffordable and undeliverable.”
In response to that, a spokesman from your office said that you were extremely disappointed by Cargiant’s approach. The spokesman then went on to say, “These comments are barely worth the paper they are written on”, before accusing them of having private sector vested interests. Is that a response that you stand by?

Sadiq Khan: I stand by the inspector and the response we took at the inquiry.

Gareth Bacon: I am sorry, could you say that again?

Sadiq Khan: We stand by the stance we took at the inquiry and the evidence we gave to the inquiry.

Gareth Bacon: I am asking you about the response that was given in your name. Do you stand by that?

Sadiq Khan: I cannot remember the press spokesperson quote. As you will appreciate, we give out dozens each week.

Gareth Bacon: OK. You are not accusing them of having private sector vested interests and you acknowledge that the comments that they have are worth the paper that they are written on?

Sadiq Khan: I take the views of all Londoners seriously. I do not distinguish between those who are businesspeople and those who are not. I cannot comment on that particular quote because I just do not remember it.

Gareth Bacon: The point, of course, is about the inspector you have commented on. On 17September [2019], the planning inspector drove a coach and horses through the OPDC’s plans for the area and instructed that site 1(a), which would have taken 25% of Cargiant’s land, be removed from the plan because it is unviable and cannot be delivered. In that light, would you like to withdraw those comments that were issued in your name?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, as I have said, I simply do not know the comments that are being talked about. I do not accuse the Member of inaccurately reporting the comments, I just do not remember them.

Gareth Bacon: OK. That is fine. I can send it to you. Where I am really going with this, Mr Mayor, is that of course Cargiant is a wealth creator. It turns over more than £500million a year and it employs 2,000 people, many of whom are sourced locally. Its business was threatened with extinction because of the development plans of the OPDC. Now, the relationship between the OPDC and Cargiant has broken down completely. We have seen documentation where Cargiant are repeatedly offering visits to the OPDC Board and the OPDC Board are repeatedly refusing. For this entire scheme, which is now in jeopardy, to be resurrected, relationships between Cargiant and OPDC need to be rebuilt. In that light, Mr Mayor, in order to retrieve the situation, will you direct the Interim Chief Executive of the OPDC to instruct the Board to meet Cargiant?

Sadiq Khan: I am due to meet, Chair, the Chair of the OPDC shortly, so I will be raising with the Chair the comments made by the Assembly Member and discussing them with her. I am happy to write to the Assembly Member once I have met with the Chair in relation to what steps have been taken.

Gareth Bacon: OK. I will stop there. Thank you very much, Mr Mayor.

Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park – long term vision

Navin Shah: What is the long-term vision for the park and how are you progressing with your plans?

Sir Peter Hendy CBE (Chair, London Legacy Development Corporation): It is no different, I think, from what everybody signed up to as part of the Olympic legacy. It is inclusive growth; it is community; it is opportunity. As I said at the beginning, I think we can already demonstrate that those principles are being adopted in what is being done there so far, and on what currently the LLDC is engaged in; so actually bringing a world-class educational and cultural centre to the place is not only of benefit to the Park and the people who work there and immediately live there, but we see it as a huge benefit to the wider community; both in the immediate area in east London and London. I think it is a really very good example of how we are seeking to develop the place for the long-term benefit of the city.
Lyn can talk to you about the housing. What we have done with the Stadium is designed to make it a sustainable part of the Park for the future, rather than a continuing liability. We take that through to principles which involve the employment of local people, providing training opportunities and so forth. I think one of the huge benefits of this development corporation is the comprehensive nature of the undertakings which we expect builders, developers, occupants, residents and educational establishments to provide. If you go to any particular employer or any particular part of the Park, we can identify local people who have benefitted from the principles which we have adopted to use.
If you go to Loughborough University London, for example, they have a large postgraduate education centre at Here East. They have a scheme to find further educational training for unemployed graduates in the area. Those things are very exceptional. They are things that a lot of local authorities would surely like to do but actually do not have the resources to do. I think we can both explain what the principles are, but we can also demonstrate that we are acting on them.

Navin Shah: I have only got a couple of minutes. In fact, Lyn, when you come in on this particular aspect, I have specific information I am after, because if I refer to LLDC’s Board papers going back to May, it is stated that there is a delivery strategy for the vision which is due to follow, setting out detailed objectives and under each of the visions, three sections, three aspirations and a clear approach to measuring success, impact and outcomes that will follow. Can you tell us, when will the delivery strategy be actually published?

Lyn Garner (Chief Executive, London Legacy Development Corporation): I think we did have a debate at Board around new focused vision. The reason for that was to think about the future of the development corporation in the next five to six years, because clearly a development corporation does not last forever; it is a time-limited organisation. We decided we needed to make sure that the principles we were putting in place around inclusive growth, community and opportunity were relevant with that in mind and really focus on those opportunities. We would be in a position to publish that towards the end of this year or early 2020. We are in conversation with the boroughs about them being joined up in some of that vision through our Board meetings, because it is pointless a development corporation putting together a long-term vision when its life is coming to an end during the period of that long-term vision. At the moment we are working hard to join up with the boroughs to make sure that whatever we publish is right for the area and that they can pick up those pieces as we move forward. That is why it has gone to Board in May but you have not seen it published yet, because we are working it through with the boroughs and getting aligned on those principles, which are really important.
In terms of how we are progressing with the plans, we are well underway with the East Bank plans, which will come to fruition in 2022 to 2023. There is still a lot of housing to come, another 23,000 homes. All the venues, as you know, are open and operating, but getting them on to a firmer financial footing, the Stadium in particular, is really important. We are progressing well, as I outlined in the introduction, but there is still quite a lot to do there. I think at the same time we need to make sure that we are working with academic partners and these significant partners coming to the Park in the arts and culture piece‑‑

Navin Shah: I have a question coming up after on East Bank.

Lyn Garner (Chief Executive, London Legacy Development Corporation): OK, fine. I was just going to say that‑‑

Navin Shah: If you can stop there because I am out of my time, I am afraid.

Lyn Garner (Chief Executive, London Legacy Development Corporation): ‑‑ working with those partners will help secure the inward investment for the longer term. Having the UCL campus there in east London is going to be tremendous for inward investment in growth moving forward, we think.

Navin Shah: Thank you.

London Legacy Development Corporation’s progress on Healthy Streets

Caroline Russell: What progress are you making in the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) to deliver Healthy Streets and reach your target for 85 per cent of all journeys to be made by sustainable travel by 2031?

Lyn Garner (Chief Executive, London Legacy Development Corporation): The target for 85% of all journeys to be made sustainable by 2031 is a target that is contained within the Legacy Communities Scheme, so it is our own target. We are fully committed to supporting and encouraging sustainable travel, and that would be in line with the Mayor’s Healthy Streets approach. Each neighbourhood is required to submit travel plans setting out measures to help achieve that 85% target. They have been approved for the early phases of Chobham Manor, phases1 and 2, and they will be monitored over the development phases as other phases come forward. Phase1 is complete and we have nearly completed phase2 at Chobham.
With outline planning permission also in place for Stratford Waterfront residential, design teams have been appointed for Pudding Mill Lane, and those plans are also being embedded within master plans for those areas, particularly in Pudding Mill, which is a new area of development for us.
Of course, the overarching target for our wider mayoral development corporation (MDC) area is in line with the Healthy Streets target, which I understand is 80%, so there is a bit of a mismatch between the two. Nevertheless, in 2018/19, when we carried out the visitor survey, we found that we were at 83% of visitors travelling sustainably, 28% having walked or cycled and 55% arriving by public transport. We are not quite at that 85% own target and we are not complacent. You will know, I think, Caroline, from when you came to the Park and had a look around yourself that we are working hard on some transport improvements. We are working on transport improvements on the Bromley-by-Bow junction on the A12, with £21million to be invested in partnership with Transport for London (TfL) and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.
We are also working to improve Montfichet Road and Westfield Avenue. These roads were planned at the time of the shopping centre being put in place, well before the [Olympic] Games, and our intention is to reduce those roads by a complete lane of traffic and to introduce easier cycling across both Montfichet Road and Westfield Avenue. There is significant funding in place, but there are some gaps to that funding. We are working to bring that forward, but the design work has started on those schemes. The aim is that by the time we open East Bank and have considerably more people arriving in the Park, we can make sure that the vast majority of that is coming through the transport routes and through cycling routes; so we are aiming for those sorts of dates.
We have some really good news that recently happened to the south of the Park, because we have re-opened two new cycling routes and pedestrian routes, one of which is a 1km section of the Greenway, which connects the Greenway from Newham straight into the Park. Actually, it really makes a difference to that part of the Park, for anybody who is familiar with that. It has been closed for quite a long period of time while we have been working on it. You cross over Stratford High Street and directly into the Park, and it just enhances the availability of the Park really considerably.
We have appointed a local cycling consultant - I think that was your suggestion when you came to see us - and they are helping us with audits locally, Park infrastructure and improving the routes. We have opened-up a new plan to look at the Carpenters Estate entrance to Stratford Station. For a long while we have had planning permission to put a new station entrance at the Carpenters Estate end of Stratford Station, so if you come via the Jubilee line and you look immediately to your left, there is a little car park there and that is where the new station entrance is going to be for Carpenters Estate. Funding is in place and we expect to open it in September2020, so we are going to be on site very soon with that, which we are really pleased about. It will help stimulate the regeneration of the Carpenters Estate in the fullness of time, depending on what the London Borough of Newham would wish to bring forward there in partnership with its residents.

Caroline Russell: Thank you very much. That is a massively comprehensive list of things and it is certainly very good news that you are working with a cycling specialist.
I would like to pick up on the £25million investment that was announced in April to make the Olympic Park better for walking and cycling. The Infrastructure Project Plan has 52 projects classed as local transport schemes, and of those there are four that are currently underway, seven have funding or permission and 41 of them do not have funding or permission yet. When are you going to be delivering those remaining 41 schemes so that people start to get that benefit? Do you have a sense of the timescale?

Lyn Garner (Chief Executive, London Legacy Development Corporation): Yes. Without a doubt, those schemes will need to be prioritised, because it sounds to me - not having the detail in front of me - an awful lot, doesn’t it? In terms of the funding requirement for those schemes and prioritising them, that will be no doubt be what officers are doing, and these ones that are coming forward now and that have funding will be the highest priorities.
Of course, we still have quite a lot of development to come on the Park. For example, we have the later phases of International Quarter London. So far, they have built about half of their office accommodation, with a further half to come, and they have residential development to come through planning. There will be various sites around the Park that are yet to come forward; so Pudding Mill Lane and Rick Roberts Way. There is a not very well-used car park in the middle of the Park near Here East that will come forward for development, then there are the sites around the periphery of the Park. For example, this year we will complete 10,200 new homes. We will complete that milestone at the end of 2019. In total, we are building 33,000 [new homes] and there is still a lot of office accommodation to come. No doubt there are still a lot of section106s still to come into the pot over that period of time, but I think the critical thing will be to make sure those priorities are listed.

Caroline Russell: What is important, if you have got all that new development, is all those new people either living or working in the Park. You want to make sure that you are building-in that walking and cycling, rather than leaving people car-dependent.

Lyn Garner (Chief Executive, London Legacy Development Corporation): I think that is absolutely right. The Healthy Streets initiatives will run all through the residential developments, as we know.
The other thing I probably should mention is that we have started working on looking at the possibilities for improvement of Stratford Station itself. Stratford Station, at some times of the day, is under quite a lot of pressure, if you have used the station.

Caroline Russell: I think, actually, other Assembly Members may be asking you about Stratford Station.

Lyn Garner (Chief Executive, London Legacy Development Corporation): Good. OK, lovely.

Caroline Russell: Therefore, I will move you on. One of the concerns has been that on the Olympic Park it has been a very motor-centric design, with big sweeping roads and cycle tracks that were disappearing at junctions just when they are needed. I am just wondering about your design guidance. Have you thought about just checking your design guidance against the Mayor’s Vision Zero aspirations so that you are definitely building in ways to make sure that people walking and cycling are kept safe on the streets in the Park?

Lyn Garner (Chief Executive, London Legacy Development Corporation): I can pick that up with the Mayor’s Cycling Advisor, who came over to see us in the last 12months. We think we are in line with the Mayor’s best practice guidance. It is quite a difficult environment at the moment. There are at least three or four sites being built out, which really frustrates cyclists, actually, because they are having to be diverted around the Park. We do‑‑

Caroline Russell: There is good practice, diverting cyclists around works, and we can insist on your developers actually following that good practice.

Lyn Garner (Chief Executive, London Legacy Development Corporation): We do, but I think nevertheless it is frustrating, isn’t it, if you are used to going a certain way and so on, so we are having to put those diversions in place. The Quietway 6 is due to come forward, of course, which is coming through the Park from Hackney Wick over to Chobham Manor and through Honour Lea Avenue, so that cuts right across the Park, which I think will be a real development. There is a new highway opening, a new north-south highway, as part of the East Wick and Sweetwater development that is opening in October. That also has a cycle route up and over the bridge into Hackney Wick and so on.

Caroline Russell: Thank you. I finally want to say I have heard that you are running an e-scooter trial in the Olympic Park, making use of your status as private land.

Lyn Garner (Chief Executive, London Legacy Development Corporation): We are. Yes.

Caroline Russell: This could be a space for trialling changes like side-road zebras and other ways of prioritising walking. I am almost out of time, but would you consider using your land for trialling things like side-road zebras?

Lyn Garner (Chief Executive, London Legacy Development Corporation): Absolutely, absolutely. Let us speak afterwards on that.

Caroline Russell: I will write to you afterwards. Thank you very much

Extinction Rebellion

Peter Whittle: To ask the Mayor why on 3 October 2019 the Metropolitan Police permitted activists from Extinction Rebellion to park a decommissioned fire engine outside HM Treasury Building in Horse Guards Road and attempt to spray the building with 1,800 litres of fake blood?

The Mayor: Sadiq Khan (Mayor of London): Thank you, Chair. I declared a climate emergency in London last year and I agree with the protesters’ view that the Government needs to stop ignoring the climate emergency and immediately deliver meaningful action. I support the democratic right to peaceful and lawful protest. However, I do not support illegal action that causes major disruption to Londoners or risks public safety. Such action is counterproductive to this crucial issue and crucial cause and puts further pressure on our already overstretched police force, which needs to be focused on tackling violent crime.
On 3 October [2019], when the police became aware of the incident, they mobilised and arrived on the scene within three minutes. Eight arrests were made with conditions imposed on them to not enter Westminster. The fire engine was also successfully seized and removed. It is not illegal to buy a used fire engine and drive it through London. However, when protesting causes disruption or breaches the peace, the MPS have a duty to intervene and they did so swiftly.
The protests have placed an enormous burden on our police. The Deputy Commissioner has ordered officers from other parts of the MPS to be redeployed to help meet the exceptional demands of this period and most Basic Command Units (BCUs) will need to move to 12-hour shifts. Removing dedicated police officers from communities will impact on neighbourhood policing. Our police resources, already stretched over years of Government funding cuts, are stretched even thinner by these actions.

Peter Whittle: Thank you for that answer, MrMayor, a very thorough answer. I would say that my question is not really so much about Extinction Rebellion; it just so happens to have been that it was Extinction Rebellion.
My question is about this fire engine parked for a matter of minutes outside the Treasury, right in the heart of what is known as the ‘golden triangle’, which, as you would know, is the most policed area in the country. In this case, they took out some fake red blood or whatever and spread it over pretty ineptly, but during that time, MrMayor, they could have taken out guns. They could have shot the building up, very effectively. They could indeed have been packed with explosives or whatever. You know what I mean. I am astonished how this was allowed to stay even for 30 seconds. That is all they needed. I am sure you know it is right next door to some terrorist barriers on Birdcage Walk. I walk past them every day. How come, in the most protected part of Britain, this was allowed to happen?
I repeat: I am not worried about Extinction Rebellion particularly. That could have been a massive terrorist attack.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I understand the concern and the reason why it has been raised. I do not want to sound complacent. The MPS and the security services take huge steps to keep our city, particularly high visibility - in inverted commas - targets, safe from people. You will appreciate that we have, I am afraid, a long history of being the target of terrorists and you are right to distinguish this particular demonstration.
I say to you, Chair, through you that I will ask the Commissioner [of Police of the Metropolis] to respond directly to your specific concerns because I am a bit conscious about saying things in public fora to reassure him. I reassure the public that the MPS is the world’s finest when it comes to keeping our city safe. As I said, we have thwarted 22 terror attacks since 2017. There are real-time comms in relation to what is going on. On this particular incident, I am happy to get the police to respond directly to him.

Peter Whittle: Thank you for that, MrMayor. I would certainly welcome that. It has to be said again. There is an old saying about terror. Essentially, they can be lucky just once; we have to be lucky all the time. I would say that we were incredibly lucky on that occasion, actually, that in fact it was not a terrorist attack.
I would say this, MrMayor, as well. You said that the police were there in three minutes. I walk past that spot a lot on the way to Westminster. I walked past it about 9am the following morning. There were still no police. There was no one to be seen in the middle of the ‘golden triangle’. How can that happen?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, to be fair, I spend a lot of time there as well and there are lots of highly visible police officers there. I cannot‑‑

Peter Whittle: They are not to be seen. I have no axe to grind or need to lie about the police. There were none there.

Sadiq Khan: Sure, if for no other reason that that is the back-door entrance into Downing Street, there are police officers there regularly and stuff, but there is also real-time CCTV.
If there is a particular operational concern that has been raised, Chair, I am very happy to get an answer to the question because it is a question that comes from genuine concern. I accept that and so I will make sure you get the briefing. Also, the lessons that need to be learned, the police will learn them and so, if you are raising a particular concern that you have, I am sure the police will look into that.

Peter Whittle: All right. Thank you, MrMayor.

Support for people at risk of County Lines exploitation

Florence Eshalomi: MOPAC’s Strategic Assessment of County Lines found that hundreds of children and vulnerable adults are being exploited by gang members. What support are you giving these at-risk people to escape gang activity?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. County lines is a vile practice involving criminal networks who groom and coerce young people to supply drugs and fuel violence. The ground-breaking Rescue and Response Programme, backed with £3million of CityHall investment, provides support to as many of those affected as possible. The programme is in partnership with London boroughs and charities, St Giles Trust, Safer London and Abianda. Their research work uncovered the devastating scale of the problem, finding that more than 4,000 young people are involving in lines operating out of London.
Rescue and Response is part of our reaction to do everything possible to support those entrapped. In the first year alone, 568 young people were referred, 243 of those were offered intervention, and 130 received support. This includes a rescue service which provides one-to-one support when people return home.
There is a wide range of additional interventions funded through City Hall to help vulnerable young people. These include London Gang Exit and Empower, funding youth workers in London accident and emergency departments and major trauma centres to help victims of knife crime, and my £45million Young Londoners Fund, which has allowed over 72,000 young Londoners access to positive activities. Alongside preventative work, the MPS continue to tackle those who are being exploited by others. We also have interventions like OperationRaptor, which has led to gang members being jailed for more than 61 years, and the use of modern slavery legislation to secure human trafficking convictions.

Florence Eshalomi: Thank you, Mr Mayor. You mentioned the work of Abianda, and, from the figures you quoted, just under 100 young women received support. Obviously we need to make sure that we are offering these young women enough support. How are you working with Abianda and other groups to make sure that their good practice in making sure we are getting young girls referred to the service is identified and replicated elsewhere?

Sadiq Khan: First, I think we have to accept that we are barely scratching the surface. There are more than 4,000 young people as young as 11 involved in county lines. We have the country’s first response to this in the scheme that we are funding the Rescue and Response scheme. About 15% of the county lines comes from London but imagine the rest coming from the rest of the country.
Abianda are doing some brilliant work targeted towards young women affected by gangs. They give one-to-one specialist support and the good news is that the people they help do not go back to county lines. What we also know, I am afraid, is that these organised criminals and gangs are targeting vulnerable people outside food outlets, schools, pupil referral units and youth clubs where they exist. We have to make sure we deal at source as well to stop vulnerable people, including girls, being targeted.

Florence Eshalomi: Obviously the Rescue and Response is a great initiative but the fact is it is already at full capacity. The data analysis from Rescue and Response records that 441 young women may also be involved in county lines. There is a waiting list of almost two years. How are you going to ensure that those young women, who need the support at the early stages of grooming, are going to get that support?

Sadiq Khan: It is really upsetting. During the course of the year, in-year - this is the country’s first scheme - we were told they were at capacity and had a waiting list, so in-year we gave them more support, more money to provide more support, but they are stretched. That is why we need the Government to reverse the cuts made over the last nine years not just to the police but preventative services as well. If we can deal at source with these issues we do not need to spend the money in enforcement later on, so there is an economic argument to invest in preventative measures as well as a moral argument and a social argument. We will do all we can at CityHall but it feels like we have one hand tied behind our back because of Government cuts.

Florence Eshalomi: There is a big issue on Government cuts and obviously working in partnership with other forces across the country is a key issue. The research from the Mayor’s Office of Policing and Crime (MOPAC) shows that young people are travelling across the country, meaning that we have to access the data from other forces. How are the MPS working with those other forces and making sure that they are confident in identifying some of the young people who have been trafficked from London? Young people from my part of Lambeth and Southwark have been found as far as Birmingham and Peterborough. How are we going to make sure that the MPS are working with those other forces?

Sadiq Khan: We have young people and also vulnerable adults being targeted as well. There has now been set up through the National Crime Agency a county lines co-ordination centre and the MPS has the lead role in relation to that because of our expertise. There is better co-ordination. The problem is the response cannot just be a policing response. You just think about the additional needs of a young person or vulnerable person: social services, housing, family networks, moving away from organised criminals and stuff. With the massive cuts in public services it is very difficult often for hard-worked, hard-pressed police to provide the additional support. It is tough. I do not want to pretend it is easy. We are trying our best to co-ordinate but, as I said before, and I do not use these words lightly, we are scratching the surface.

Florence Eshalomi: Just finally, Mr Mayor, I quoted some of those figures but they are quite low. Are you concerned that the low number of girls identified with county lines means that essentially criminals are continuing to use girls to operate where they may likely avoid suspicion?

Sadiq Khan: What has happened is that as the police have targeted organised criminals and gang members, young men and older boys, they are moving to others to be mules and supply drugs: girls, vulnerable adults, taking over people’s homes. We have to be innovative and evolve our ways of addressing that as well. The key thing is that we need to stop people getting involved in this in the first place, target those who are targeting vulnerable young people, but also deal with the enforcement side as well. We have to be innovative in how we respond to organised criminals, changing the way they operate.

Florence Eshalomi: Thank you. I will leave it there, Chair.

Brexit

David Kurten: What plans have you made for Londoners to celebrate the historic occasion of our departure from the European Union on 31 October 2019?

Sadiq Khan: Sure. The Assembly Member asked for plans for a celebration on 31October. Leading economic forecasters, including the OBR and the Bank of England, are warning this could likely lead to a recession. The Government’s own assessments are warning it could lead to consumer panic, rising crime, food shortages and economic chaos. In light of this, I do not really think, Chair, this is a cause for celebration.
Like most Londoners, I want us to remain in the EU and have campaigned hard for that in the run-up to the referendum. After the referendum in 2016, I said I would do what I could to help ensure the Government was able to reach the best possible deal to leave the EU, and I engaged with the Government, with Brussels and with EU leaders. Retaining membership of the Customs Union and the single market, as I called for, would have protected UK jobs and prosperity and averted the return of a border in Northern Ireland, as well as protecting the rights of EU citizens in this country and the Brits who have chosen to live on the continent.
The Government failed to progress this route over the last three years, preferring to negotiate a bad deal that would have us leaving the Customs Union and single market, which was rejected three times by Parliament. In light of this, Chair, I have no plans to celebrate, should we leave the EU on 31October without a deal.

David Kurten: Mr Mayor, come on. I know you love a celebration. Your answer seems to be like one of these bad Hollywood movies that is all gloomy and apocalyptic, but really that is not what is going to happen. You simply cannot forecast all of those things that you said. The good thing about leaving the EU on 31October [2019] is that we are going to have full control back of our sovereignty and our money. We are going to have £39billion that we would otherwise have to give to bureaucrats in Brussels, which we could spend on housing and schools and hospitals and all those good things that we want to do in this country. We will have that control of our territorial fishing waters and we will have British fish for British fishermen once again. We will also be able to‑‑

Jennette Arnold: Assembly Member Kurten, very entertaining, but I want a question now from you. A question.

David Kurten: Madam Chair, I am just building up to the question.

Jennette Arnold: Just put the question.

David Kurten: The question, Mr Mayor, is: given all the good things that are going to happen when we have Brexit, shouldn’t we have a celebration for the 1.4million Londoners who voted for Brexit?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, when I am chairing the Mayor’s Advisory Group with leading members of the MPS, the fire service, the National Health Trust (NHS), councils and utility companies and discussing some of the concerns they have in relation to a no-deal Brexit, it is not a cause for celebration. When I look at the consequences of the pound going down and the increase in food prices and inflation, I do not think it is a cause for celebration. When I speak to Londoners - they are Londoners, by the way, who were here in City Hall three weeks ago when we were offering free legal advice on immigration status, and they have been here for many, many years, and they were in tears worried about their future status in this country - it is not a cause for celebration. When [The Rt Hon] BrandonLewis [CBE MP, Minister of State for Security] talks about deporting EU citizens after December next year if they do not have secured status, I do not think it is a cause for celebration. If you think it is, that speaks more to you and your values than it does to me.

David Kurten: Mr Mayor, what would be catastrophic is if we overturned a democratic decision of 17.4million people taken in June2016 to leave the EU. Don’t you think that you and other people who are calling for a second referendum which may have on the ballot paper remaining is absolutely wrong? We have voted to leave, and leave should mean leave, Mr Mayor.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, here is the conundrum with those Brexiteers who advocated leave. It is unclear exactly what they meant by ‘leave’. If you read back, listen to and watch what campaigners who campaigned to leave were saying in 2016, they were not saying, “Leave the EU without a deal whatsoever”. They were saying things like, “We will leave the EU and still be members of the single market”, or they were saying, “We will leave the EU and be members of the Customs Union and single market”, or they were saying, “We will have a really good trade relationship with the EU”. Nobody was saying, “Leave the EU without any deal whatsoever” and nobody was saying we would be deporting EU citizens who do not have secured status.
My point in response is why are you scared of giving the British public a final say? What can be more democratic than giving the British public a final say? Why are you scared of democracy?

Jennette Arnold: No, no. Assembly Member Kurten, no, seriously. This is not a conversation between you and the Mayor. Mr Mayor, you are not here to ask Members questions, and I would just ask you to contain yourself to giving answers to their questions.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, it was rhetorical.

Jennette Arnold: No, we do not need rhetorical. We have enough on our plate.
Do you have any further questions?

David Kurten: Mr Mayor, there is nothing scary about implementing the decision of the referendum in June2016, and that is what we should actually do. Mr Mayor, I do feel that in some ways you are rewriting history here. What we said in the debate going into the referendum and since then is that‑‑

Jennette Arnold: No, no. You are going off your question. You started about celebration. Bring it back to your question.

David Kurten: OK. Back to the question - I will just build up to my next supplementary question, Madam Chair - obviously, what we have said is that we are able to obtain a mutually beneficial free trade agreement in goods and services with the EU. That is the endpoint, and I am sure that you will probably agree with me that that is a good thing. Unfortunately, I am out of my time, so I cannot ask any further questions.

Jennette Arnold: Thank you. You used it well.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, it is probably the first time we disagree.

Brexit

Leonie Cooper: What does the latest situation regarding Brexit mean for London’s economy, businesses and residents?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, with the Government refusing to clarify when and how it intends to comply with the law enacted by the Benn Act, there remains a very real risk of a no-deal Brexit at the end of October. We have to hope that common sense and the law will prevail in securing an extension, but nothing can be taken for granted, and a disastrous no-deal Brexit in a fortnight is a real risk.
Any form of Brexit would do long-term damage. However, a no-deal Brexit would be the worst of all possible scenarios. Leading economic forecasters - the Bank of England, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) and the Institute for Fiscal Studies – to conclude that a no-deal Brexit is likely to be followed by a recession in 2020 and UK debt levels would reach their highest levels since the 1960s. This would fall hardest on London’s most deprived households. Their prospects of staying in work are most likely to be diminished in a recession. They have already suffered the worst effects of welfare reform and austerity, and lower wage growth and higher food prices will push them even more into poverty.
Uncertainty around Brexit has deterred many businesses from investing since the referendum. UK productivity has suffered its worst drop in five years, and the latest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) figures show the UK’s economic growth is close to zero.
We continue to work extremely hard to ensure plans are in place for a no-deal Brexit, should that occur on 31October[2019]. However, I want to be clear that the very best that can be achieved is merely a mitigation of the worst impacts of a no-deal Brexit on Londoners and on our city. I will continue to oppose a no-deal Brexit, which could be avoided completely by withdrawing Article 50. Ultimately, there must be a public vote with remain on the ballet paper to give the public the final say.

Léonie Cooper: Thank you very much, Mr Mayor. Perhaps we can have a slightly more mature discussion about Brexit and the potential for different types of Brexit deal or no deal.
The Government, as you are aware, has released its no-deal readiness report. What is your assessment of that report and what it might mean for London’s economy?

Sadiq Khan: The short answer is it would be disastrous for our economy. Leaving with no deal would simply cause problems with jobs, growth and prosperity, but also it is worth reminding ourselves that that is when the negotiations begin to our future relationship with the EU. If we do leave the EU without a deal on 31October [2019], that is not the end of it. That is actually when the real business begins in relation to our future trade deal with the EU. Depending on what trade deal we have, that has an impact on jobs, growth and prosperity in our city.
We asked Cambridge Econometrics to do some analysis, and the scenario most damaging to our city was no deal: not a member of the single market, not a member of the Customs Union, no transition period. It appears that we are heading towards that scenario.

Léonie Cooper: I have spoken to a lot of people, some who voted leave, some who voted remain, some who still support leave, some who still support remain, some who have changed their views. I think a lot of people were expecting a deal to be negotiated, and we have had this really long period first with one Prime Minister and now with another. Given all the evidence of the implications of a no-deal Brexit, do you, therefore, think that it is right for the Mayor of London to be supporting Londoners and businesses through what has been an extended period of uncertainty and trying to assist people over the implications of the deal, rather than just washing your hands of this?

Sadiq Khan: I was with business leaders yesterday and spent lots of time speaking to businesses, small, medium and large. The point they are making is there is nobody from Government talking or listening to them. It is really important, and one of my roles you will be aware, is to promote the economy of London. I think I would not be discharging my duties as the Mayor if I was not doing so. Frankly speaking, any Member of this Assembly who is not advocating for our businesses in London is not doing their job as a Member of the Assembly and they should be ashamed.

Léonie Cooper: How important do you think it is that Londoners have a final say on any deal that is actually negotiated?

Sadiq Khan: Here is the thing. Those who complain about a public vote need to explain why more democracy is a bad thing. What we have been offered now by this Government is a million miles away from what was promised in 2016. You can go back and look at some of the quotes and arguments raised by prominent Brexiteers, from BorisJohnson [Prime Minister] to MichaelGove [Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster] to LiamFox [Member of Parliament for North Somerset] to NigelFarage [Leader, Brexit Party]. None of them talked about leaving the EU without a deal. Most of them talked about us being members of the Customs Union and the single market and being able to do a trade deal over the course of an afternoon. Bearing in mind we are a million miles away now from what was promised in 2016, I think we should give the British public a final say: “Do you accept the terms of exit in the scenario negotiated by the Government?” with the option, not in abstract terms, “Now you know the terms of exit, do you want to remain in the EU?”

Léonie Cooper: Thank you very much, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Chair.

No-deal Brexit and businesses

Leonie Cooper: Are London’s businesses ready for a no-deal exit from the EU as the Minister Michael Gove suggested?

Sadiq Khan: London’s businesses are not ready for a no-deal exit from the EU. A no-deal Brexit and the fallout would be a disaster for London. Some big multinationals have the resources to contingency plan, but we know the vast majority of small businesses, the lifeblood of London’s economy, remain unprepared.
According to a recent survey by the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, only 9% of London business leaders polled say their business is prepared for a no-deal Brexit, and nearly a fifth say they require support in planning for one. Another recent survey by the Federation of Small Businesses found that amongst their members who believe a no-deal scenario on 31October[2019] will negatively impact their businesses, nearly two-thirds say they are not able to plan for the impacts. Instead of providing the kind of certainty and practical advice that entrepreneurs needed to prepare for Brexit, the Government committed £100million to adverts announcing a Brexit deadline that it cannot meet. Imagine the police officers or youth workers that could have paid for. A positive thing the Government could do instead would be to do what the law requires and implement the Benn Act, ‘no ifs, no buts’, and request the extension from the EU that would prevent a no-deal Brexit in a fortnight.
It is clear that Brexit uncertainty has stalled business investment and productivity since the referendum. In London, business start-ups have fallen, business closures have risen, and there has been a marked decline in the net start-up rate from 6.1% in 2016 to 1% in 2017. That is why I have stepped up advice and support available from City Hall during this important period.

Léonie Cooper: Thank you, Mr Mayor. You just mentioned the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Federation of Small Businesses. Also the British Retail Consortium stated that, and I quote,
“We have been crystal clear that while retailers are doing everything they can to prepare for a no-deal Brexit on 31October, there are limits to what can be done.”
I think that completely contradicts MichaelGove’s statement that everybody is fully prepared. What are businesses saying to you and the Deputy Mayor for Business?

Sadiq Khan: They are concerned. You mentioned the Retail Consortium. For example, if you are a retailer selling food, fresh vegetables, fresh produceit is a big concern. It is the end of our season. Christmas is coming. The ability to store some of this fresh produce is an issue. There is a big concern in relation to a weak pound and the increase in prices, and there is a big concern in the lack of shared information from the Government. What happens, for example, if there is a delay at the borders at Kent, Tilbury Docks or elsewhere? That is just food. There is a big issue in relation to tariffs that are applied to goods.
All of these are unknowns which are making retailers extremely nervous, and businesses generally are worried about the uncertainty created by the scenario we currently face.

Léonie Cooper: One of the actions that you have taken is to set up the Growth Hub centres, and I wondered how the nine new centres are going to be able to support businesses through this latest period of incredible uncertainty.

Sadiq Khan: The Brexit Business Resource Hub and the London Growth Hub have been used by hundreds of thousands of businesses across London. One of the things we have realised is that some small businesses particularly need face-to-face advice, so we will have five presences physically across London with four satellite presences as well. We are already going out and doing one-to-one advice sessions, doing workshops. There is a concern which is expressed by the survey figures I read out that small businesses in particular are not ready and are not sure what to do to get ready. If we do leave the EU without any deal on 31October[2019], the impact will be immediate, so we are trying to get to them as soon as we can, working with the Government to try to make sure more and more people know about the consequences should we leave the EU on 31October.

Léonie Cooper: Thank you very much, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Chair.

LLDC’s Challenges

Gareth Bacon: What do you see as the key challenges for the LLDC over the coming years?

Lyn Garner (Chief Executive, London Legacy Development Corporation): I think we are doing well. I think LLDC is doing well in securing the Olympic and Paralympic legacy. Nevertheless, there is a need I think to maintain the pace of growth in what we are facing in some quite uncertain times. That will be a key challenge going forward.
We are pushing forward with East Bank and the housing sites we have mentioned earlier about difficulties in the construction world and that uncertainty. I have no doubt there will be viability questions going forward as well. We have all seen the flatlining of the housing market in recent times. We would hope for an uplift in that in the future. Nevertheless, we have made estimates of house price inflation in our long-term budgets that we may need to revisit over time, depending on how the market performs.
Fundamentally, the legacy and our vision is about changing the lives of east Londoners. We talked earlier about the importance of making sure that for things like East Bank and housing, local people are really feeling the advantage of that. That is another key challenge and a really difficult one to make sure that all sorts of local people get proper engagement into arts, culture and education facilities that are coming on the Park, and that they feel it is something for them. That includes skills, training and job opportunities as they come forward.
The Stadium remains a key challenge. We have spoken extensively about the size of the deficit that we are dealing with. There is a lot of work to do to bring that down in terms of taxpayers’ subsidy.
Lastly, I talk about the transition planning that we have also touched on. We need to secure this legacy: a really high-quality park and venues. We want to maintain a single estate that all of the boroughs can get behind as our borough partners, return the planning powers and make sure that we keep inward investment at the top of the agenda. That means that over the next couple of years we have to work really closely with the boroughs in bringing forward a strategy we can all buy into. We hope to have a strategy for transition signed off early in 2020. We are due to take a paper to our Board in January, where we are hoping to get the boroughs to sign up to the date of the transition of the development corporation. We have made good progress there, but there is still lots to do.

Sir Peter Hendy (Chair, London Legacy Development Corporation): I would just add that I think an additional challenge is to do all of that in a time-limited organisation. Lyn and her senior team and the rest of the team at the LLDC are very, very motivated, and it will be a challenge to keep them motivated in jobs which clearly have a finite timescale. I am very mindful of it, personally, because I think a lot of the progress that we have been able to describe to you in the last two years is because Lyn and her senior team are fully engaged, and I would like to keep them fully engaged even though the organisation does not have a long-term future.

Shaun Bailey: When you talk about the challenges going forward and you talk particularly about the handover, you seem to have a team that is looking at that.

Lyn Garner (Chief Executive, London Legacy Development Corporation): Yes.

Shaun Bailey: I think one of the biggest challenges was mentioned earlier about convergence. Do you have a work team looking at that? In your own comments, you have just said one of the biggest challenges is making sure that local people reap the benefit of what is going on. Is that a separate workstream?

Lyn Garner (Chief Executive, London Legacy Development Corporation): Yes. We have a lot of work in terms of monitoring. We can tell you the numbers of people engaging and the impact we are having in that regard: the proportion of local people who work in our venues, the proportion of local people who visit the Park. We have that kind of a database.
What we do not have is: what impact is this regenerative project having on, say, a set of key performance indicators out in the boroughs that are measured in terms of people’s life chances? We do not own those indicators, and they were owned by the boroughs. What is really positive now, though, is that the four boroughs that are our neighbours have started coming together to think about whether they do want to reinstate some impact statistics around that area. It is difficult, but it was never really owned by us. It was owned by the boroughs. The impetus for measuring that has fallen off somewhat in recent years. But I agree. It is important, I think, that we are able to say what the impact has been beyond a list of numbers, actually. If we cannot show movement in those key statistics - whether they are educational outputs, job outputs and so on and changes in people’s lives - it is very hard to really focus on the difference that has been made. In our organisation, we are always a supporter of convergence, but it was never really owned by us as a piece of work.

Shaun Bailey: I see what you are saying, but it needs to be more than just the statistics, doesn’t it? If a thing is working or not, you need to know now so you can make the change. As SirPeter[Hendy] said, you are time-limited, so you will run out of time to deliver what for many local people is the most important part of this, a life change. I am just trying to tease that out. Are there a set of people within a borough, within your own team, that you are encouraging to look at what has worked and what you can change in view of the fact that you are going to end sometime soon?

Lyn Garner (Chief Executive, London Legacy Development Corporation): We have started a piece of work outside of the boroughs, although they are aware of it, to look at social impact locally. We have the advantage of having very close relationships with UCL. We are looking at the minute at establishing a discrete set of indicators in and around the Olympic Park area that might show us about subtle changes in people’s circumstances and so on, but it is a very early piece of work in social impact and it will be academically held. It will be a good quality piece of work but it is taking a while to develop that, and it is early days, to be honest with you.

Shaun Bailey: OK. Thank you.

Sir Peter Hendy (Chair, London Legacy Development Corporation): You are right, because one of my concerns is that, in the run-up to transition, we do not take our foot off the pedal in doing this, that we hand over to the boroughs at the end of the life of the organisation a running rate of change which is credible, and that somehow, in running down the organisation, we do not let up that. That is why I am so pleased that the partners in East Bank are taking such interest in bringing what they do into the local community now, because that is one of the additional features which the LLDC is bringing on which will be a permanent legacy.

Shaun Bailey: Thank you for that. I also agree. What effect is the deficit that the Stadium runs at going to have on transition?

Sir Peter Hendy (Chair, London Legacy Development Corporation): It is a really good question. One of the reasons that we have to work so hard to put the Stadium on the best possible footing is because there is a view, or there has been a view, certainly, from a long way away, that somehow this is a priceless set of assets which needs to be carved up between people willing to take them. The truth is that there are some wonderful assets in the Park, but clearly a stadium with a continuing deficit is not one of them. I think our job is to reduce it to the lowest feasible level so that, as we move to transition, whatever goes into transition is in the best possible place.
Lyn has taken on a workstream to look at the venues in the Park as a whole to see that we are marketing them as a whole, but when we talk about a transition with the boroughs and other interested parties, it is about the whole thing. It is about how the Park looks. It is about what is in it and what it is doing for the community. There are liabilities, because the Stadium is one of them, in financial terms. The other is that the upkeep of the Park - if it is going to remain in the long term a place where people are proud to live, where people want to visit and where the quality of the employment and education is to a high standard - is quite a considerable cost burden. We need to make sure that, as we hand it over, everybody takes it in whatever form it comes, understands what the costs are, and is in a position to shoulder that burden for the future. It is quite a big undertaking and it is not just deciding where everything goes. That is really the point, and the Stadium is one of these principal things.

Shaun Bailey: I take your point. Of course, if you are a local authority who is expecting to take on the Stadium, if it is a huge liability, of course they will not do it.

Lyn Garner (Chief Executive, London Legacy Development Corporation): Yes. Ultimately, the assets, the venues and the Stadium and the Park are in the freehold ownership of the Mayor of London.

Shaun Bailey: We will be left with the bill for that?

Lyn Garner (Chief Executive, London Legacy Development Corporation): The aim here is to bring down the public subsidy to the lowest possible amount. That is part of our job, and that is part of the commercialisation of those venues. It is perfectly possible, in my view, to make a big difference to the current numbers. There is still a lot of work that can be done.
As far as the Park is concerned, there is something called a fixed estate charge. All of the occupiers of the Park, be they businesses or residences, not in affordable housing but private residences, pay something called a fixed estate charge. That helps with keeping the standards of the Park where they are now. When we model the fixed estate charge over the long term, that is looking quite robust in terms of the current costs for the upkeep of the Park. We are reasonably confident that the upkeep of the Park as a single estate can be maintained by the businesses and the residents who are part of that Park. I think it is the venues where we need to really focus our efforts, and your question is key around the Stadium in particular and its long-term future.
At the moment, we control the operating company. We do not have a medium-term vision on where we are going with the operation of the Stadium, but that will be a crucial decision to be made pretty soon because the Mayor of London and the city of London, the GLA, are not really an organisation that runs venues hands-on themselves. In the next year or so, probably sooner than that, we need a strategy for what is happening with these venues: who is going to run them, where the contracts will sit, and how arm’s length they would be from any Mayor of London? I do not think that they are likely to return to the boroughs. This is why, in layers, there is quite a lot of complexity in the transition that is not just about the planning powers. What we would like to do is, at the end of the development corporation, have a strategy that covers the whole thing, where we can all see what is going on with the finances and who is picking up what, and in what measure and so on.

Shaun Bailey: OK. Thank you, Chair.

Government Funding for London

Joanne McCartney: Further to my Question number 2019/17690 regarding funding for extra police officers – what extra funding has been allocated to London so that you can start to reverse the swingeing cuts to the police and other public services that the government has made over the past 8 years?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. Any police officers for London are welcome but this funding represents only a very partial reversal of the huge Government cuts to the MPS since 2010. I have been clear that London needs at least 2,000 of the extra 6,000 officers promised nationally next year and I agree with the Commissioner that London could receive 6,000 of the 20,000 promised nationally over the next three years. The Government has allocated a bit more than the two-thirds of the officers that I have called for. I will keep pushing the Government to go further and faster in reversing its cuts so that we can properly tackle crime and violence.
I am also deeply concerned about the continuing uncertainty that remains over the funding of these new officers. The Government’s recent announcement has set a recruitment target for the MPS for 2020/21 far below the number of officers we need, but still failed to provide details of the specific funding from the £750million it has announced. Given the Government’s apparent disregard for the significant challenges faced by a global city like London, I remain deeply concerned that the funding provided will be inadequate. A mere 23% of this funding to the MPS, in line with the officer numbers allocated, will ignore the additional challenges London faces and will leave the MPS and Londoners short-changed.
There is even less certainty in future years. While the £750million announced in the spending round is welcomed, the Government has given no indication of whether this is one-off or long-term funding. The MPS cannot plan effectively for the future without funding certainty. This impacts its ability to deliver for Londoners. I have taken the initiative in providing some degree of certainty through an increase in the business rates base for the MPS. Although the Conservatives on the Assembly voted against my budget, our CityHall funding has made it possible to recruit 1,300 more officers than would otherwise be affordable had the Conservatives succeeded in that vote.
We urgently need the certainty of a multi-year funding settlement. Business rates are plugging only part of the gap the Government has created. The Government’s announcement then provides neither the officers nor the certainty necessary to deliver the policing London needs.

Joanne McCartney: Thank you. That uncertainty is really worrying. The target is for the MPS to recruit 1,369 officers and that works out at around £99million, which is a significant proportion of that early money. This week the Police and Crime Committee heard from DeputyCommissioner [Sir]StephenHouse [QPM], who said, “We could train and deploy more than that. I do not think 1,369 is enough”. He asked the Government to realise that London needs to be considered separately because of the pressures on the force here. Is that a case you are making very strongly to Government?

Sadiq Khan: Absolutely. One of the reasons why there is a NICC grant is because there is a recognition that London is different from other police forces around the country, other cities around the country. To give you a comparator, NewYork, a smaller size than London, has 37,000 police officers, significantly more police officers, but also significantly more police staff and other uniformed officers as well. That should be the comparator as far as London is concerned, not smaller police forces in smaller cities around the country.

Joanne McCartney: Thank you. Of course you have mentioned police staff, which are an important part of our policing family, and you referred earlier to the cuts that have been made to date. Over the last eight or nine years, £850million has been taken out of the police budget. They are still planning for a further £236million in cuts to 2022/23, and what you have done is put in business rates. The MPS is using its reserves to try to stabilise the number of officers. This additional money is not going to make up for the austerity that has happened and the cuts that are still planned to be made. My question is: do you have any reassurance from Government that there is more funding to stop the further cuts? That, in effect, will cancel out any extra funding.

Sadiq Khan: No, no assurance from the Government. If you remember, not at this recent Conservative Party conference but last year [The Rt Hon] TheresaMay [MP for Maidenhead] said, “Austerity has ended”, and we thought we would get additional monies for public services.
I will just give you one example. When a police officer investigates a burglary, someone has to do forensics. There is analysis that needs to be undertaken. The cuts the Government has made over the last nine years mean that the police staff who assist front line officers to do their job have been hollowed out. The Government is talking about more police officers - no certainty about the numbers or how many we get in years going forward - but it is also not adding the additional sums of money we need for the whole system that the police need to properly prevent and investigate crime.

Joanne McCartney: On the basis of what you have said and what the Government has failed to deliver so far, it looks like we still could have a cliff edge around 2023 with our police numbers dropping.

Sadiq Khan: As things currently stand, the MPS is still facing a cliff edge in 2021/22. We are very worried not only about the issues you have raised but also things like pensions going forward as well, and it is really important the Government answers the serious questions we have urgently.

Joanne McCartney: Thank you.

Brexit

Fiona Twycross: Will you be holding more ‘We are all Londoners’ events?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. Yes. I will continue to champion and celebrate our city’s diversity, doing everything I can to support European Londoners through the Brexit process. Since the referendum decision was made, I have been clear that despite Brexit, over 1million EU citizens living in London are Londoners. They are our friends, neighbours and colleagues. They are facing the biggest change in rights and immigration status in our country for a generation. European Londoners face huge anxiety and uncertainty caused by the Government’s threat of a no-deal Brexit, confusion over the deadline for securing their status, and threats of deportation if they miss the deadline.
As last week’s official application figures show, they are being let down by a Government that is not doing enough to ensure Europeans do not face a crisis, akin to the Windrush scandal. We know that nearly 2million of the UK’s EU nationals and their families have not applied for settled status. Polish nationals have the lowest uptake, despite being a large proportion of EU citizens in the UK.
I am doing everything in my power as Mayor to ensure that European Londoners can access the support and the information they need to secure their rights. It is also important to recognise and celebrate their contribution to the capital. That is why we welcomed over 1,200 Londoners to City Hall last month to watch the UK’s first EU settlement ceremony and to explore and enjoy European culture and music. Five hundred of these Londoners accessed free pro bono one-to-one legal advice on the EU settlement process. Remarkably, Conservative Members of the Assembly criticised me for holding this event.
In March [2019] we held the London is Open community advice roadshow, providing free immigration advice to over 1,000 European Londoners across ten boroughs. We also launched the EU Londoners Hub in March, which has already been accessed over 271,000 times, providing EU citizens and their families with crucial information about living in London after we leave the EU. We are working with civil society to deliver even more direct support to vulnerable EU Londoners through a micro-grant programme, funding 15 community projects to date.

Fiona Twycross: Thank you. I would like to thank all those involved not just in the ‘We Are All Londoners’ events but in all the events and work designed to make our EU fellow Londoners feel welcome in the city. I have to on this occasion declare a personal interest because I went with my husband, who is a European Economic Area (EEA) citizen with pre-settled status. I was struck by how keen he was to come to the event. I mentioned it in passing to him and he was really keen to come along. It is not often that I can be persuaded to go back into work on a Saturday without some sort of major incident being in place. He and clearly many of those present were absolutely delighted to be here and particularly to see his nationality and national flag represented in the displays here. I thought it was a really great event. It was a true celebration of Europe and the European nationalities that make up a large part of the diversity of our city.

Jennette Arnold: Excuse me. Can I have a question?

Fiona Twycross: I do have a question ‑‑

Jennette Arnold: Yes, please.

Fiona Twycross: ‑‑ and it is around the point that you made, MrMayor, about the need to make sure the particular groups, where there are lower levels of applications for settled status and pre-settled status, particularly around those groups, and what more will be done to make sure that groups where there are lower levels of applications are encouraged and given information to apply; for example, around Polish applications.

Sadiq Khan: Firstly, I will just say, Chair, that I was really pleased that we were able to facilitate a date night for Fiona and her husband at City Hall at the We Are All Londoners event.
It is a really important point. There are some members of our community in London who may appear to be harder to reach than other members and so what we are doing is making sure that we go out to them. The groups that we are particularly concerned about are those who are Roma, rough sleepers, disabled people, and non-EU nationals reliant on EU family. We have supported some outreach work from various projects in London that know those communities best. Some of these communities will not access the online services that we have and so we are doing more of that.
The thing that causes me alarm is that we had one of the most senior members of the Government last week saying that if EU citizens have not signed up for secured status by the end of next year, they could be deported. That is causing real alarm amongst Londoners - and these are Londoners, by the way - who are EU citizens. That is why we are redoubling our efforts to reach them. My worry is that many of the people may disappear. They may be worried about being deported. They may misunderstand what was said. Any advice or assistance that you have or others have I am more than happy to hear.

Fiona Twycross: You mentioned the Home Office Minister [Rt Hon] BrandonLewis’s [CBE MP] comments about deporting EU citizens who have not applied for pre-settled or settled status before the deadline. Are you concerned that the Government has not learned from the Windrush scandal?

Sadiq Khan: Absolutely. Look, I still meet now people who were affected by the Windrush scandal and it was a scandal and a disgrace, but my point is this. Put aside the Windrush scandal. We know that the Home Office, the UK Border Agency (UKBA) and the authorities are not the most efficient in the world and, if just one in ten has not registered for whatever reason, in London that is more than 100,000. Around the country it is more than 330,000. These are, for all intents and purposes, Londoners and Britons. It is really important, before the Government is talking about draconian consequences, to be confident that there are systems in place to do it efficiently and properly. I am not sure that they are spending enough time educating the public and making them aware. The fact that you cannot, for example, register using an iPhone already reduces the number of people who have a computer and can register. The Government has to do much more to get the registration rates much higher, bearing in mind that we now know the consequences of not being registered.

Fiona Twycross: Thank you. Would you pass on thanks to all these concerned with the work in this area?

Sadiq Khan: I will make sure I do. Thank you. Thanks for your kind comments. Thank you.

Fiona Twycross: Thank you.

Deprivation in London

Fiona Twycross: What do the Government’s recently released indices of deprivation mean for London?

The Mayor: Sadiq Khan (Mayor of London): Thank you. The indices show there are still too many Londoners feeling the effects of deprivation and poverty, and issues like housing affordability and air quality remain big challenges. The latest release broadly shows that overall London has a smaller proportion of England’s most deprived neighbourhoods compared to the last set of data published in 2015. However, there is no room for complacency and there is much more to be done.
We also have to be cautious in how we interpret this information. Much of the data behind the release was collected in 2015/16. The full effects of the Government’s damaging welfare reforms were introduced in 2016, many of which have had a negative impact on Londoners that has not been captured. The research my team at City Hall published in July[2019] shows the impact of these reforms will push an extra 100,000 Londoners, including 75,000 children, into poverty by 2021/22. The research also shows that reforms over the past four years like the benefits freeze and the two-child limit have significantly cut threshold incomes of some of the most disadvantaged Londoners. As we know from other sources, UniversalCredit has contributed to an increase in rent arrears and food bank use. The results of the new survey of Londoners, which was published in June, show that a staggering 1.5million and 400,000 children in London are living in situations of low or very low food security.

Fiona Twycross: Thank you. I agree that we cannot be complacent, and I wondered if you could comment on how important London Challenge Poverty Week is in continuing to highlight the issues and contribute to eradicating poverty in London.

Sadiq Khan: The summit is taking place now, as we speak, and I am sure if I was not here I would be addressing the summit. It is really important. It raises awareness of inequalities taking place but also celebrates the work being done by partners to address this. It shows how we can tackle poverty. One of the things that Debbie Weekes-Bernard [Deputy Mayor for Social Integration, Social Mobility and Community Engagement], who is addressing the summit on my behalf, the event, will be talking about is the fruits of the work we did with Child Poverty Action in July. In the first five weeks of the project, which is putting advisers on welfare rights in primary school, the pilot increased the incomes of these families in this one primary school by almost £50,000 combined. It shows, with the right advice, how we can take steps to address some of the poverty Londoners are facing.

Fiona Twycross: Thank you. How are your Research and your Economic Fairness Teams looking at the reasons behind deprivation so that we can find real solutions to poverty in London?

Sadiq Khan: We have already looked at some of this. That is one of the reasons why I talked about welfare benefit changes from the Government. It is a reality that the welfare benefit changes have driven more people into poverty.
I am concerned that if we get the wrong exit from the EU - all exits are bad for us - it will accelerate some people being driven to poverty. One of the things we are doing is working with employers to get more employers to pay the London Living Wage. I am really pleased that we have more than doubled, since I became Mayor, the number of employers paying the London Living Wage. We are doing a whole lot of work in relation to the causes of poverty, the drivers of poverty, but also what can be the drivers to get people out of poverty as well.

Fiona Twycross: Thank you.

Central Line CCTV

Shaun Bailey: Can you provide more information on the timetable for the rollout of CCTV on the Central line?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. It has been clear for many years since before I became Mayor that the Central line needs CCTV to help ensure the safety and security of passengers. Crime on the Central line is not new. When I first became Mayor in 2016, I was disappointed that there were no concrete plans in place for CCTV on the Central line, but now Transport for London (TfL) is doing everything possible to get CCTV cameras up and running on the Central line as soon as possible. As part of TfL’s £380million Central line improvement programme, we have firm plans in place to install CCTV on all Central line trains as well as to make other improvements to ensure the trains are safer, more reliable and wheelchair accessible.
Unfortunately, the existing train systems are unable to provide the additional power or lighting required for CCTV cameras. The existing lighting on trains is also likely to be insufficient to provide images admissible in evidence. The new Central line CCTV system is integrated with the new train computers. All major contracts are in place and the first CCTV-equipped trains will be in operation on the Central line from next year.
The Central line is London’s second busiest line. It is also the longest line. Given the lack of investment or plans from the previous Mayor and given the scale and complexity of the improvements and the need to keep trains in service, it is not possible for this to be delivered any faster than it is.
At the same time as delivering CCTV, we are also working on other things to make the Central line as safe as possible. As we know, the most effective interventions adopt a combination of different approaches. The Central line is a priority for the British Transport Police (BTP) and it is the most heavily patrolled line on the network. Notwithstanding massive central Government cuts, there are 3,000 police and community support officers dedicated to policing the transfer network, with specialist operations taking place to target areas with the highest volumes of reports. The police are using all the tools at their disposal to investigate certain offences, including over 12,000 station CCTV cameras, Oyster card data and witness statements to support investigations. Through major campaigns like Report It to Stop It, TfL is putting an unprecedented focus on tackling unwanted sexual behaviour on London’s public transport and is encouraging thousands more victims to come forward and report offences with over 1,000 arrests being made since the campaign began.
TfL and the police will continue to bring those committing crimes to justice and tackle issues like violence and sexual harassment until they have eradicated them from transport for good. Every Londoner or visitor should feel safe and confident to travel on London’s public transport network and I will keep doing what I can to make this possible.

Shaun Bailey: Thank you, MrMayor. Could you give us some more detail on the rollout of these cameras? When will the project be finished?

Sadiq Khan: They begin operation next year. All of the CCTV on the Central line will be completed by the end of the contract period, which is 2023.

Shaun Bailey: Given the fact that we have known for a while that offenders deliberately focus on the Central line because it has no CCTV, are you happy that it is going to take four years before this project is finished?

Sadiq Khan: No, I am really angry with the previous Mayor. The inheritance I had was awful: no plans in place, no procurement plans in place, no contracts in place. The legacy was awful. He also sacrificed our operating grant.
In the context of having no plans in place, we have gone from a standing start position. We have found the money to make sure this happens and we are going as fast as we possibly can. At the same time, we are doing all the other things that I have said we are doing to make sure we can keep public transport as safe as we can.

Shaun Bailey: Be that as it may, you have been Mayor for three years and you have waited until this point to start. You could have started much earlier. Again, are you a bit disappointed that we are going to have to wait till 2023? If we go at our current rate, thousands of women will be sexually assaulted in that time. Are you happy that you have done everything to make sure that this will be delivered as quickly as possible?

Sadiq Khan: No, it could have been much faster had I inherited some plans. These sorts of contracts need to be procured, they have to be designed, there has to be specification and there has to be the work undertaken to make sure we get the power and the operations working properly. Had the previous Mayor had plans in place, we could have made sure these were brought in much sooner. Because there were no plans, even though, as I said, we have known for some time that there is no CCTV on the Central line, we have had to from a standing start do this.
I have checked with TfL. We are going as fast as we can. Clearly, there are processes in place in relation to procurement but also to make sure the power and operations are ready for the CCTV that we need.
We have also looked at, at my request, whether it is possible to retrofit on the current trains. It is not. The power is insufficient. The light is inadequate. I was appalled that the previous Mayor did nothing about this and we now know we are going as fast as we can. I have double-checked that we are.
If we were to use other alternatives, it would take a bit longer. There are two things: of course value for money, but more important than that is the safety of commuters. We have made sure there are other things taking place. You will remember the previous Mayor closed ticket offices on the Tube. Due to my review, they stayed open but we employed more staff on the Underground as well. You will also beware that because of the Night Tube I had 100 more offices on the Underground.
I am confident we are doing what we can, but I am always happy to listen to ideas - even from backbenchers - in relation to how we can improve the Underground.

Shaun Bailey: Can I just talk about timing? When did you start to look at putting CCTV on the Central line?

Sadiq Khan: TfL has been looking at plans on a rolling basis. There are two lines without CCTV‑‑

Shaun Bailey: When? If they have been looking at them on a rolling basis, was it prior to your arrival - because then your first statement is incorrect - or was it since your arrival? Have you insisted that they look at plans for CCTV?

Sadiq Khan: I have always been conscious about safety. If you go to my manifesto, you will see where I talk about safety in my manifesto. It is a big concern that I have.
In relation to specific procurement plans, they can only happen when I have the deals in front of me. That can only happen when I am the Mayor of London. When I have become Mayor, I have seen the plans we have for a whole host of safety issues, not just on the Underground but on our buses, on our trams, on the Overground‑‑

Shaun Bailey: I accept that. I am talking in this specific case. You said there was a lack of plans. I am just asking when you started looking at plans. When did your office direct TfL to make specific plans?

Sadiq Khan: As soon as I became Mayor, we started looking at safety issues. One of the things that I did before the Night Tube began, for example, was to make sure we had plans for policing on the Night Tube‑‑

Shaun Bailey: Sorry, MrMayor. Sorry to interrupt you. When were you looking at plans specifically for the Central line?

Sadiq Khan: TfL has been working on these plans since I became Mayor. We are going as fast as we can. The first Central line trains will have CCTV next year. I have checked with TfL. That is as fast as they can possibly go. I have also checked with TfL if it is possible to retrofit CCTV on the current Tube trains we have. The answer is no.

Shaun Bailey: It has taken three years to get to the point of doing anything and we are going to need to wait another four years before it is completed?

Sadiq Khan: If you think the only way to provide safety is CCTV, that is the wrong way to go about it. It is a combination of measures and so‑‑

Shaun Bailey: Not at all. I am speaking specifically about the CCTV. I am not saying that that is the only thing, but I am just saying. You said that there were no plans previously. I am just asking why it has taken three years to get to the beginning of doing anything. That is all.

Sadiq Khan: ): I beg your pardon, Chair. I thought the Assembly Member was aware of the deep-lines investment. I am happy to send him a note.The deep-lines investment is on four lines: on Central, on Piccadilly, on Bakerloo and on Waterloo and City. I thought he had had the briefing. I am sorry, Chair. I will make sure that backbenchers are properly informed of investment in the Underground.

Shaun Bailey: MrMayor, let us be clear. We are not talking about the deep lines. We are talking about the Central line. We are not talking about that investment programme. We are talking about specifically when you started looking at plans to put CCTV on the Central line.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I think we are talking at cross purposes. If I can explain, the Central line is part of the deep Tube programme. It is quite deep and so when you look at ‑‑

Shaun Bailey: I know that, MrMayor. I know that. I am trying to focus specifically on the safety of the Central line and those particular CCTV cameras. I just asked you a simple question. When did you ask for that particular piece of work to start? That is all.

Sadiq Khan: If I could explain this, it is a bit more complicated than this AssemblyMember realises.

Shaun Bailey: It is not.

Sadiq Khan: It is part of a package of measures that take place. You do not procure for just one thing. You procure for a number of things and part of that procurement process is specification. As part of the spec for the Central line, we said we want CCTV. What you do not do is à la carte when it comes to massive investment in public transport. Safety is a big issue for us, which is why at the same time we are investing in more police officers. We are investing in the BTP. We are investing in new ways to report it to stop it. I was one of the first people who joined the campaign by GinaMartin [feminist campaigner] to outlaw upskirting, which is a big issue for women and girls on the Underground.
I am really sorry if the Member thinks the only tool in the toolkit is CCTV. It is an important part of it, which is why I have been so frustrated that no action was taken - no action at all - by the previous Mayor. The good news is that this Mayor takes public safety seriously and so action is being taken.

Shaun Bailey: Moving on, you talked about the Report It to Stop It campaign. Can you commit to giving the Report It to Stop It campaign permanent ad space across the network?

Sadiq Khan: We are doing more than that, Chair. We are doing more than that. Again, I am surprised. What we are doing is we are promoting the campaign on social media. We are promoting it on video on demand. We are promoting it on digital radio. We have a partnership with Stylist magazine. The campaign is far more sophisticated than the AssemblyMember realises.
What it has led to, I am really pleased to say, is more confidence in reporting it. It is horrific that we are now seeing more examples of some of the incidents people suffer, but what that leads me to believe is there is more confidence in the reporting system. More reporting does lead to more stopping. Going back to upskirting, we have had four convictions already, Chair, in relation to this new offence of upskirting. Our methods are working to make sure people are more aware about Report It to Stop It.
I am also always happy, Chair, to listen to ideas from backbenchers and others in relation how we can make public transport even more safe.

Shaun Bailey: When did I become a backbencher? Thank you for that.

Sadiq Khan: Sorry, Chair. Was that a question? If it was a question, I am really happy to answer it.

Jennette Arnold: No, it is not.

Sadiq Khan: Are you sure?

Jennette Arnold: Yes.

Sadiq Khan: We could have some fun.

Jennette Arnold: Do you have another question, Assembly Member Bailey?

Shaun Bailey: In view of the fact that crime across the network is up 43% under your tenure, what else are you doing particularly to pursue not only sexual assaults but all other crimes across the network?

Sadiq Khan: Yes, I have been concerned by the increase in crime on public transport across the country. The latest figures that we have seen across the national British railways show a 52% increase in drug possession‑‑

Shaun Bailey: Sorry, MrMayor. Can I ask you to concentrate on London? You are the Mayor of London.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, the question is about what else we are doing. I was leading to some of the examples we are learning from other parts of the country. If the AssemblyMember wants to let me finish, I can address his question, with your permission.

Jennette Arnold: OK. You have the time, MrMayor.

Sadiq Khan: All right. What the national figures tell us is that we have seen a massive increase across the country in relation to crime and public transport, a 36% increase in theft and a 52% increase in drug possession on Britain’s railways. What we are doing is learning lessons from across the country.
Also, as he will be aware, the BTP police the entire country and so we contribute towards the BTP and we are working with them to police around transport hubs. We have noticed that young people gather around transport hubs and we have seen violent crime around transport hubs. We are working with the MPS and the Violent Crime Task Force and other police operations focused around transport hubs. We are working with the BTP. You will be aware, for example, that this morning, due to the swift response of the BTP, protesters breaking the law were taken off the DLR train. It is a teamwork effort.
In my first answer, I gave an example of the combination of measures we are taking from extra policing to making sure we have reversed the cuts made by the previous Mayor, closing ticket offices, but I am always happy to hear ideas from all Londoners, backbenchers or others.

Jennette Arnold: AssemblyMemberBailey, do you have another question?

Shaun Bailey: Thank you, Chair. I am finished.

Met Police

Steve O'Connell: Are you satisfied that the Met is fit for purpose?

Sadiq Khan: Our police officers do an incredible job under extremely difficult circumstances and I want to take this opportunity to thank them all once again for what they do for our city. As Mayor, the safety of Londoners is my top priority and I will continue to back the MPS, which is overstretched and under-resourced, so that it gets the investment and support it desperately needs from the Government.
This is more important now than ever before because crime has been rising across the country, including here in London. There has been an unprecedented shift in the threat of terrorism with London suffering four deadly attacks and more being thwarted; I am told 22 in the UK since March 2017. There has been an increase in protests and disorder with more people taking to the streets on a range of issues from climate change to Brexit. Demand is rising due to the increased complexity of crime and the systemic cuts to youth services and preventative measures.
As I have stressed many times before, our brave and dedicated officers are being asked to do more and more with less and less. Of course, the new police funding announced for 2020 and 2021 by the Home Office is welcome, but this must be seen in the context of the last decade of brutal cuts to funding, which has caused so much damage, and the delay there will be in recruiting new inexperienced officers. Against this extremely difficult background, the MPS is doing all it can to keep Londoners safe.
This view is shared by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC). In terms of efficiency and legitimacy, the force was judged as good overall and, while it requires improvement in effectiveness, the MPS’s performance is moving in the right direction. There is always room for improvement and the Commissioner [of Police of the Metropolis] and I agree that the MPS must continue to get better and learn from any mistakes that are being made.

Steve O’Connell: Thank you very much, MrMayor. I hope you agree with me. I personally believe that the MPS is the greatest police service, being an old-school police force, in the world.

Sadiq Khan: Thank you for saying that.

Steve O’Connell: It is served by thousands of fine men and women. However, MrMayor, do you think that the MPS’s reputation has been damaged by the botched investigation, Operation Midland?

Sadiq Khan: It is upsetting to say so but it has. It is because we care so much about the police service. That is why it is upsetting to say that.
What we know is that serious errors were made. Serious mistakes were made. Unfortunately, that has an impact on our reputation as a police service. That is why I was really pleased by the Commissioner’s response in welcoming the HMIC looking at what further lessons can be learned because we want to reassure people that the MPS is a learning organisation and will learn its lessons.

Steve O’Connell: Thank you. MrMayor, you are very keen to take invasive interest in, as we have heard earlier, the MPS’s quite proper interest in the applying of section14. You appear not during your tenure to have shown any great interest in the subject that we are talking about now, Operation Midland and the MPS’s handling. Why is that?

Sadiq Khan: Operation Midland, Chair, began in 2014.

Steve O’Connell: Indeed.

Sadiq Khan: I became Mayor in May2016. Operation Midland ended in March2016. I became Mayor in May2016. As I have said and as the Mayor at the time said, it was the right thing to commission an independent inquiry by SirRichardHenriques. The Henriques Report says that serious errors were made.
I have been quite clear. It is important that the MPS learns from the investigation and that victims of rape and sexual assault feel confident to come forward report crimes and that all allegations are treated seriously by the MPS. One of the reasons why I welcome HMIC looking at what future lessons can be learned is because I am keen to make sure we learn the lessons going forward.

Steve O’Connell: The Home Secretary has asked for further investigation into the outcomes of the Henriques Report. Do you support that?

Sadiq Khan: What she has asked for is for future lessons to be learned, which I support, absolutely.

Steve O’Connell: OK, MrMayor. That is fine. We have a Plenary meeting in a couple of weeks. I may continue the conversation then with you. Thank you very much.

Definitions of affordable homes

Siân Berry: How many definitions of ‘affordable’ homes are used by your office?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. As Londoners well know, the previous Mayor and the Government pushed the definition of affordable home to breaking point. Their definition included homes to buy for close to £500,000 and homes to rent at 80% of market rate.
When we started negotiating with Ministers in 2016 for affordable homes funding, the entire budget was for intermediate homes to buy and there was not a penny available for rented housing of any sort. We have been pushing them at every opportunity for more money for rented housing, and we have been building as many social rented homes as we can with the funding constraints we face.
When I became Mayor, I scrapped the definitions used under the previous Mayor, and I have been very clear what I mean by ‘genuinely affordable’. First, homes for Social Rent, which include council homes. Second, homes for London Living Rent set at one-third of local average incomes. Third, homes for shared ownership, part-buy, part-rent, which helps Londoners buy without needing a large deposit. These three types of home have been at the heart of my Affordable Homes Programme and my draft London Plan. As I said earlier, it is only through our relentless perseverance that we have managed to get any money for Affordable Rent.
We have then introduced a work-around solution of capping rents for London Affordable Rent homes at Social Rent levels. This allowed us to use national funding to deliver genuinely affordable social housing for Londoners. By using my funding and planning powers, we have been able to start building record levels of genuinely affordable homes. Under the previous Mayor’s programme, the number of homes for Social Rent fell to zero. Last year we started building nearly 4,000. Over time, as legacy schemes complete and my planning policies are fully implemented, an increasing percentage of London’s new supply will be one of my preferred three types of affordable homes. For any others, I have introduced an income cap in my planning policies to make sure that where rents are different from the level I would like to see charged, they are still genuinely affordable for Londoners.
Given the bare cupboard I inherited, we have made real progress. We are very clearly heading in the right direction. However, we need a fundamental step change in investment from the Government if we are going to truly end the housing crisis.

Sian Berry: Thank you, Mr Mayor. As you know, I am concerned about the number of ‘dodgily defined’ homes still coming forward, but also within your proposed tenures, how they are defined. A lot of the affordable housing products that you say are genuinely affordable are aimed at people on median incomes, and that automatically makes them unaffordable for half of Londoners by definition who earn less than the average income. The London Tenants Federation says that the only genuinely affordable housing product that you are offering is Social Rent. Do you agree with that?

Sadiq Khan: I understand where they are coming from, but what we are trying to do is work within the rules we are given by national Government. The national definitions are quite clear. How we are given funding is quite clear.
My ask to the Government, to address your point head-on, is for the amount of genuinely affordable homes that are Social Rent to go up to 70%. The negotiations taking place with Government are to address that point. You are right; many Londoners do not receive a Living Wage. Many receive the minimum wage. We need more homes with Social Rent. One of the things we are in negotiation with the Government for is to make sure we have far, far more Social Rent homes going forward.

Sian Berry: I look forward to seeing better grants and more grants for Social Rent in future, for certain.
I want to go back to my original question and what is going on at the moment within the planning decisions that are being made now and looking through the London Development Database. You mentioned your preferred tenures. Those are three of the eight possible definitions of affordable housing. There is also affordable, intermediate listed there, starter homes, which do seem to be dying out, discount market rent, discount market sale.
Apart from starter homes, seven of those definitions are still being used within planning permissions being given in London. In the last full year we had, 2018, a quarter of permissions are for tenures within what we, I think, both would call dodgy definitions of affordable. It is still a bit of a mess. As we know, almost all of these definitions do not qualify as affordable housing. Can you give us a deadline for when, in planning terms, dodgy definitions will no longer get permission?

Sadiq Khan: There are two separations. One is allocation of grant money to planning. You will be aware some of this grant money began in 2015, and that is why you mentioned the starter homes. We have tried to change‑‑

Sian Berry: I really want to concentrate on planning. Can you tell us when they will be phased out? There are still a quarter coming forwards that are dodgy.

Sadiq Khan: One is grant money. The second is planning. We have a draft London Plan, not a London Plan final, so it is waiting to see when the London Plan comes into fruition. Once the London Plan is there, that will obviously take over the previous London Plan.

Sian Berry: That will wipe them out completely?

Sadiq Khan: There will still be some legacy schemes. Obviously, there are those schemes that councils consider, which are below 150 units, but we want to eventually go towards our model. If there is grant money available from the Government and if some councils are giving permission, it is very difficult for us to get involved in those.

Sian Berry: OK. Sorry. I will stop there. Thank you.

Affordable fares for Londoners

Caroline Russell: What is your strategy for making fares affordable for all Londoners?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Deputy Chairman. In the eight years before I became Mayor, TfL fares went up by more than 42%. Londoners were paying some of the highest public transport fares of any major city. I made a pledge to freeze London transport fares for four years, paid for by making TfL more efficient and exploring new revenue-raising opportunities. Since I became Mayor, all fares set by TfL have been frozen. To put this into perspective, the overall increase in National Rail fares over the last four years was around 8.8%. In January, National Rail fares will rise again by up to 2.8%.
The introduction of the Hopper fare, which enables passengers to make unlimited bus and tram journeys for the price of one within the hour has also made travel more affordable to millions of Londoners. Since its introduction, the Hopper has saved customers money on over 368million bus journeys, with more than 450,000 bus and tram journeys made every day using the Hopper fare. The Hopper fare is benefiting people on lower incomes but most, including those who live in outer London, who often have to make long and complex journeys to work as they cannot afford to live in central London. I have also protected a range of travel concessions, which is an important part of providing affordable travel in London and ensuring that everyone can participate in the life of our city.
I am proud of what we have achieved to make transport more affordable. TfL is providing a vital service to Londoners and the policies we have delivered since 2016 are helping to provide a way of life for Londoners, to create new opportunities to reach their potential, whoever they are and whatever their circumstances.

Caroline Russell: Thank you, Mr Mayor. Hopper fares and frozen singles are no good if you are living in outer London and rely on a Travelcard that has gone up every year since you have been Mayor. Will you do anything to make Travelcards more affordable?

Sadiq Khan: I have talked about it in the past. The way the Travelcard works is as an arrangement between central Government, the DfT and train-operating companies (TOCs). I have no locus to renegotiate that deal between the DfT and TOCs. What I have been saying to the Government is that if I can manage to freeze TfL fares, why can’t you, bearing in mind these TOCs make massive profits at the expense of commuters who receive a bad service with delays, cancellations and huge prices? My message to the Government is that if I can do it, why can’t you?

Caroline Russell: Thank you. The last figures that I have seen showed that one in four journeys are made using a Travelcard, so it is a really significant issue.
If you cannot reduce fares for everyone, how about doing it for nurses? There are some key workers, like the police, who are given discounts or free travel. Why not extend these discounts to other key workers like nurses?

Sadiq Khan: We have looked at the issue of key workers. The Assembly Member will be aware that we have a huge range of concessions we already give. Some of the nurses that are being talked about may be eligible for the other concessions. One of the biggest obstacles to reduced travel, subsidised travel or free travel is definition. How does one define a ‘key worker’? For many people, a key worker also includes cleaners, porters, planners and some of the staff who work for - dare I say - you. There are radiographers and those others who work in hospitals. One of the issues is with definition. That is why our fares freeze is so useful to all Londoners who use public transport, particularly those poorer Londoners who live in outer London and have to use buses. The Hopper fare is being used by a huge number of Londoners.
My ability to freeze fares would be far greater if the Government had not cut our operating grant by £700million a year. One thing that would really help me is lobbying the Government, not just in relation to getting TOCs to freeze their fares but also in relation to a decent operating revenue settlement as well.

Caroline Russell: We can agree on that. Earlier this year I found that 20% of people felt forced to own a car in London. In much of London, car ownership is still rising. Would not a measure of a successful fares freeze be more people using public transport rather than cars?

Sadiq Khan: We have in London every day more than 5million people using the Tube and more than 6million people using buses. Around the country, there has been a massive dip in people using public transport and people using buses. We have not seen that in London. One of the reasons is because of my fares freeze. Another reason is that our public transport is very good, affordable, accessible and safe. We have to carry on investing in that but it is made very difficult with no operating grant.
The good news in relation to car usage is that as a consequence of my Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) brought in this year, opposed by the Conservatives, we have seen fewer non-compliant vehicles coming into central London, more compliant vehicles being used and air quality being improved. A good example of a policy good for the air, good for more people using public transport, opposed by the Conservatives.

Caroline Russell: The former Mayor, KenLivingstone, had a 70p bus fare that massively boosted bus use. Do you think you are being radical enough with fares?

Sadiq Khan: The former Mayor had a brilliant Labour Government. If I had a brilliant Labour Government, I could do much more. I have an awful Conservative Government and it is really important that we do our best to make sure, whenever the general election comes, we kick them out, get a decent Labour Government and get some policies that help --
Tony Devenish AM: Bring it on. Are you calling for an election?

Sadiq Khan: I have someone who is trying to be an MP. I have somebody trying to be an MP.

Tony Devenish: Are you calling for a general election?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, can I just say I hope I get on with JoJohnson’s successor as well as I got on with [The Rt Hon] JoJohnson [MP for Orpington]? What is important is to have a good, radical Government helping a good Mayor doing good things for Londoners.

Caroline Russell: Mr Mayor, I am totally out of time but yes, it would be lovely to have a Green Government.

Tony Arbour: OK, that is it.

Tony Devenish: Even she laughed.

Housing needs

Andrew Boff: Are you meeting London’s housing needs?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. London’s housing crisis has been decades in the making, with far too few genuinely affordable homes having been built for many years. In London, 56,000 households are homeless and living in temporary accommodation, 370,000 children are living in overcrowding, and rents have risen almost twice as fast as earnings since 2005.
We will never be able to fully meet London’s housing needs without a step in the level of investment and powers from national Government. Since taking office, I have used all the resources available, and we have begun building record numbers of genuinely affordable homes. We know the overwhelming need is for social rented housing. Under my predecessor, the number being built fell to almost zero, but we have begun to turn that around. Last year we began building more genuinely affordable homes than in any year since powers were devolved to London, including record numbers of Social Rent, through my new Building Council Homes for Londoners Programme. We also had councils start the most new council homes since 1984.
Alongside my Affordable Housing Programme, we have overhauled the planning system to make sure more new homes meet Londoners’ needs. Under my predecessor, affordable housing and planning permission fell to just 13%, and even that was using his dodgy definition of affordable. As part of our new approach, an independent evaluation by Grant Thornton published in May this year reported that genuinely affordable housing has risen to 36% in 2018.
I also set up the new London Land Fund to buy land for developments with higher proportions of affordable housing. Through this fund we have secured 50% affordable housing at North Middlesex University Hospital, a minimum of 50% affordable at the former St Ann’s Hospital site, and over 1,000 homes with at least 60% affordable on the former Holloway Prison site. We are severely limited by the lack of public funding from Government, and that is why I am working with G15 and others. We have estimated London needs £4.9billion per year of Government grant funding to build all the homes Londoners need. That is seven times what we currently receive.

Andrew Boff: Mr Mayor, you said that you are building more new homes to meet Londoners’ needs. Last year, according to your own figures, the number of Greater London Authority (GLA) funded affordable family-sized homes that were started went down by over 30% from 2,892 to 2,005. Do you think this will improve London’s overcrowding problem or make it worse?

Sadiq Khan: One of the reasons why there are more intermediate houses is that is the way the funding from the Government is skewed. Because the Government skews the funding towards intermediate housing, which tends to be two-bedroom, you are seeing fewer social rented family homes that we need.
One of the things we have done in the draft London Plan which was not in the previous London Plan was require boroughs to set size mix requirements for social housing, and this means local councils can set targets for family-sized housing that will meet the needs of people in the local area. Clearly, with more funding for social housing, we could have more social housing that families would want to live in.

Andrew Boff: If this is a problem with regard to intermediate homes, had the rules changed in the past year?

Sadiq Khan: No. The Government’s funding since we negotiated with it has been weighted towards intermediate housing. That is more so in 2015, as Assembly Member [Sian]Berry alluded to previously. Funding was for starter homes.

Andrew Boff: Why have they declined under the same rules, the number of family homes that are being built? Why have they declined under the same rules?

Sadiq Khan: There are two types of family homes we are talking about. One is market value family homes, which are not affordable to Londoners, and another is social rented family homes, which are affordable to Londoners. Our focus is getting more of the latter because that is what Londoners need. Market-value family houses are not affordable to Londoners, so that is why you are seeing more and more people who are living in these family-sized homes having their grown children living with them, but what the grown children need are one-bedroom and two-bedroom properties that are affordable to move out of Mum’s and Dad’s home.

Andrew Boff: Are you saying there is not a requirement for larger family homes?

Sadiq Khan: Market value, there has never been a requirement for family homes under the previous Mayor’s Housing Strategy or ours. What we have done in our Strategy differently from the previous Mayor’s is require councils to work out what they need for Social Rent family homes in the area.

Andrew Boff: Can you explain why, according to your own figures, the amount of overcrowding in London in 2017/18 is at its highest level for nine years? That is 8.7% of all London homes. All London homes, not just affordable.

Sadiq Khan: The answer is easy. It is a consequence of your Government’s welfare benefit policies because of the cap you introduced in relation to housing benefit, not linking housing benefits to the local housing allowance. What that has led to is families not being able to live in homes sized commensurate with their families because of the welfare benefit changes made by your Government. If you feel strongly about this, work with me to lobby your Government to reverse welfare benefit changes it has made.

Andrew Boff: Mr Mayor, you have removed all targets from your Housing Strategy and indeed the London Plan for family-sized housing.

Sadiq Khan: Not true.

Andrew Boff: You can explain how that is not true. How is that going to affect overcrowding in London?

Sadiq Khan: Let me read, Chair, if it helps the Assembly Member, what the draft London Plan in 2019 says. Draft policy H12 states, and I quote, “Schemes should generally consist of a range of unit sizes”, and it goes on and refers to, and I quote, “A strategic and local requirement for affordable family accommodation”. Draft policy H12 states, and I quote,
“For low-cost rent, boroughs should provide guidance on the size of units required by number of bedrooms to ensure affordable housing meets identified needs.”
As I said, we are requiring councils now to set out the targets for family-sized social housing that meets their specific needs, and our draft London Plan, when it is fully made into a London Plan, will assist councils to do just that.

Andrew Boff: You have left that responsibility to the boroughs and then abnegated responsibility for the numbers. What percentage of family homes do you expect to be built over the next year?

Sadiq Khan: There has never been a percentage requirement on boroughs. We are criticised for doing that‑‑

Andrew Boff: You decided not to do that.

Sadiq Khan: What it means is that councils will work out what the needs are for the boroughs, and different boroughs will have different requirements. Borough A may have, when it has done its assessment, fewer families who need family-sized Social Rent homes. Borough B may, when it carries out its assessment, need more family-sized homes than‑‑

Andrew Boff: Do you think the 350,000 young people being brought up in overcrowded conditions will welcome your abnegation of responsibility on this matter?

Sadiq Khan: What they will welcome is us working together to lobby the Government to reverse the welfare benefit policies that have led to this sort of overcrowding. What they will welcome is the Government giving me seven times more funding to build more social rented homes and council homes, rather than what we have at the moment, which is us receiving one-seventh of what we need. What they will welcome is the Government, rather than wasting £4billion dealing with the consequences of no-deal Brexit, using that £4billion to help build the homes that Londoners desperately need.

Andrew Boff: Mr Mayor, do you think that after Brexit you might actually pick up your proper responsibilities and look to the interests of London’s young people?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I am astonished. I am really astonished that the Assembly Member does not see the position of Brexit and young Londoners.

Andrew Boff: You are terribly distracted by one subject. You are not interested in public order. You are not interested in housing. You are not interested in the knife crime on our streets. You are only obsessed with Brexit. This is from a Mayor whom we have elected to deliver on all those subjects, not Brexit. I am finished. Thank you.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I am astonished that the Assembly Member does not realise the link that Brexit has to housing and to young people. Had he read, for example, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors’ (RICS) report? It talks about the impacts of Brexit on housebuilding. Had the Assembly Member read the Bank of England’s report, it talks about the impact of Brexit on housebuilding. It is really important for us to realise the consequences of Brexit on a whole host of issues. It is the proceeds of taxes raised by people working, by the growth created, that leads to us being able to fund these public services. I am really surprised that the Assembly Member does not understand the basic economy and the way it works.

Andrew Boff: I understand all too well, Mr Mayor. I just wish you would give that speech from the top of a train in Canning Town.

Jennette Arnold: Thank you, Assembly Member Boff.

Sadiq Khan: Sorry, Chair. I did not hear the question.

Jennette Arnold: I did not hear it either.

Andrew Boff: I said I would like to you to give that speech from the top of a train in Canning Town.

Sadiq Khan: Was that a question, Chair? I should respond. I should respond, surely.

Jennette Arnold: No, he did not put it in a question form, and I am not going to have a bat and ball between the both of you.

Social housing demolitions

Tom Copley: Last year you introduced your Good Practice Guide to Estate Regeneration, but do you think it is right for social housing to be demolished before plans for its replacement are approved?

The Mayor: Sadiq Khan (Mayor of London): Thank you, Chair. Protecting any increase in social housing is critical to solving London’s housing crisis, but far too often plans for estate regeneration have included a loss of social housing and landlords have simply not earned their residents’ trust. As Mayor I have used all the powers available to me to change this.
At the heart of my approach is my Good Practice Guide to Estate Regeneration, published last year. This guide is the country’s first and reflects policies in my Draft London Plan requiring any social housing to be replaced like for like with an increase in affordable housing wherever possible. It also introduced my new approach, which requires projects wanting GLA funding to demonstrate the residents’ support through a positive ballot. I have been encouraged over the last year to see at least six ballots have taken place, all of which have been positive, and that councils and housing associations have largely embraced my approach.
However, I was very concerned to hear recently that Westminster Council is planning to demolish social housing at Ebury Bridge through permitted development rights rather than have their full regeneration plans go through the scrutiny of a planning application. I have no jurisdiction over permitted development approval but I have asked my team to look into this urgently. In the approach that they are taking, Westminster Council seem quite blatantly to be trying to avoid City Hall’s and indeed the public’s scrutiny of their plans. What is more, as they have not applied on this scheme for GLA funding towards the replacement of homes in the scheme, it means they also appear to be avoiding scrutiny from residents by dodging the ballot requirement.
Westminster Council should be ashamed of these shoddy tactics. They have made clear the pitfalls of national permitted development legislation and also the importance of a Labour Government making ballots a requirement for all estate regeneration schemes, whether or not they receive funding from CityHall. I would urge Westminster Council to do the right thing now. Be upfront about your plans, let them be subjected to full scrutiny and, crucially, give residents the final say.

Tom Copley: Thank you very much for that answer, Mr Mayor, and I of course welcome your requirement within the Estate Regeneration Good Practice Guide for ballots on estate regeneration schemes involving demolition. Indeed, it was something the Assembly unanimously called on you to do, so that is very welcome.
With regard to WestminsterCouncil, I have written to [Councillor] NickieAiken, the Leader, about this particular issue. You mentioned that your officials have been looking into this. Are you aware of any powers that exist - I do not know whether they are your powers - or whether there is any ability to appeal Westminster Council’s decision to grant itself planning permission under permitted development rights to knock down these buildings?

Sadiq Khan: My officers are looking into this. You will appreciate it would be unwise for me to telegraph my intentions if it is the case that we go down the particular route you are suggesting. What I am clear about is that this appears to be an example of a council looking for any loophole they can to avoid allowing residents to have a say on a scheme. I am not quite clear what the council is scared of, giving residents a voice. We will be looking into the scheme and looking at what we can do to address this, but it demonstrates a council not being on the side of their residents and being scared of allowing the residents to have a say.

Tom Copley: In the particular piece of legislation they are using in order to demolish these buildings, apparently there is a condition that it is not allowed if the owner of the buildings has allowed them to deteriorate. It seems quite clear that that is what Westminster Council have done through moving the residents out and allowing the buildings to fall into disrepair. Do you think there could be potential for residents or the community to judicially review the council’s decision?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, as you will know, I always am receptive to good ideas from the Assembly Member and he often presents good ideas in this forum. As I said to him, my officers are looking at all possibilities and all possible routes to try to address what is clearly an attempt by this council to circumvent guidelines and the guide that we have. More importantly for me, I am hoping Westminster residents are aware of what their council is doing in their name.

Tom Copley: Thank you very much, Mr Mayor.

Implications of EU Exit on Policing and Security

Unmesh Desai: Does a no-Deal Brexit risk making Londoners less safe?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, a no-deal Brexit risks the safety and security of our citizens by removing access to vital intelligence from European partners and our ability to bring offenders to justice. The default no-deal position which we will have while we negotiate new processes is grossly inadequate. The costs of no deal are mounting even before no deal has happened. If it does, it has been estimated that police forces will be expected to pay up to £22million to cover the impact. This money would have been better spent on front line policing.
I am increasingly concerned that this Government is pursuing its ruinous no-deal Brexit at any cost. There are reports from an unnamed source at No 10 that, and I quote,
“Defence and security co-operation will inevitably be affected if the EU tries to keep Britain in against the will of its Government.”
Effectively holding these vital issues as a bargaining chip is outrageous. It shows the Government is willing to jeopardise the security of our citizens to drive through its agenda.
One of the many policing and security benefits of working with the EU has been cross-border co-operation, improving the safety of Londoners. National policing experts have already warned that losing access to the European Arrest Warrant and Europol would make it harder to keep track of terrorists and serious organised criminals.

Unmesh Desai: Thank you, Mr Mayor. You said earlier this morning that - and I agree with you - there is a link between Brexit and policing. On Tuesday, SirStephenHouse [QPM], the Deputy Commissioner [of Police of the Metropolis], gave us examples of how Brexit, particularly a Brexit not planned for, would actually affect policing in a very practical sense. We do know that dangerous offenders do cross borders. In crimes such as modern-day slavery, indecent images of children and counter-terrorism operations, organised criminal networks operate across the globe. The MPS works with the National Crime Agency and bodies such as Europol as part of these investigations. In fact, Assistant Commissioner NeilBasu [Senior National Co-ordinator for Counter-terrorism Policing] said that a no-deal Brexit would “create an immediate risk that people could come to this country who were serious offenders, either wanted”, or people who we do not know about. Can you tell us, how concerned are you that serious criminals will actually seek to capitalise on the no-deal Brexit? Do you agree with Assistant Commissioner NeilBasu that there will be some damage to safety? I quote him again, “I can’t put a scale on the damage to our safety”.

Sadiq Khan: Absolutely. Some Members of this Assembly claim to be pro-police yet ignore the police when they give advice about the consequences of a policy they are pursuing. Let us be clear. Expert police officers have advised the Government that following this scenario, leaving the EU without a deal would mean some of the tools they need to keep us safe they will not have. What has been the response from the Conservatives? Ignore the advice from the police and continue down the road of a no-deal Brexit. You have heard from the Deputy Commissioner. You have heard from the Head of Counter-Terrorism. If you listen to the National Crime Agency, if you listen to most senior police officers who know how this stuff works, they will tell you that we will be less safe and less secure if we have a no-deal Brexit. Any alternatives will be much clunkier and will be more expensive and will lead to more delays.

Unmesh Desai: I was going to ask you a question about the article in The Spectator but you already referred to it. Don’t you think it is, quite frankly, irresponsible to use language such as in that article that, “Everything to do with ‘duty of sincere co-operation’ will be in the toilet”? This is actually what the article says about what is the threat, that we use national security as a bargaining chip in the negotiations with the EU.

Sadiq Khan: We now know this Government is willing to use EU citizens as bargaining chips but also willing to play fast and loose with our security and use security as a bargaining chip. It demonstrates how shameless these people are.

Unmesh Desai: Of course, this article is in The Spectator, not The New Statesman.

Sadiq Khan: Indeed.

Households at risk of homelessness

Tom Copley: 30% of households assessed by local authorities as being homeless or at risk of becoming homeless are in full or part-time employment, rising above 40% in some London boroughs including Newham, Merton, Lewisham and Enfield. What can you do to help these households in London?

Sadiq Khan: Thanks, Chair. These figures confirm the shocking impact of the Government’s failure to build enough social housing, their cuts to the welfare system and their lack of action to ensure people earn decent pay. As it has become harder to buy a home or get a social tenancy, more and more Londoners are being forced to rent privately. Rents have spiralled and with wages stagnant, the number of private tenants in London in work and on housing benefit has more than doubled to over 100,000 over the past ten years. In 2009, only 26% of private renters who received housing benefit were in work. Now it is 59%. The Government’s savage cuts to the benefits to help cover private rents have led to a huge increase in renters losing their homes and this accounts for the bulk of increasing homelessness in the capital in recent years.
We need the Government to change course but in the meantime we are doing a number of things in London to help. We are promoting the London Living Wage through my Good Work Standard. We are also, through the Adult Education Budget, helping those who earn less than Living Wage to be eligible for training courses to help them progress. Second, we are building record numbers of new council, social rented and other genuinely affordable homes, and third, we are pressing the Government to reverse the welfare reforms which have made it so difficult for Londoners on low incomes to secure and sustain homes. The Government urgently needs to bring benefits back into line with rents over all the private rented sector and give London, City Hall and the councils the investment powers we need to build the council, social rented and other genuinely affordable homes Londoners so desperately need.

Tom Copley: Thank you very much, Mr Mayor. Last week GenerationRent released data showing that private renters in England are losing out on about £70million a year when landlords kick them out. Missed time at work, cleaning bills and moving costs stack up to around £1,400 each on average. I have written to the Secretary of State to urge him to follow up on the promise that was made by the Prime Minister’s predecessor to end section21 no-fault evictions. Do you think this is a move that would help London’s struggling private renters, or do you agree with members of the Conservative Group that it is just a cheap stunt?

Sadiq Khan: I was astonished when they said that because they clearly are not in tune with Londoners who have to rent privately. You were a big part of the campaign to get the Government to abolish the fees tenants pay to letting agents, which they did last year, and that is because we saw tenants paying huge fees when they moved into new tenancies and letting agents being incentivised to have shorter contracts, change the contracts and flip to get a fee from it. Similarly, section21 leads to big problems because we know that tenants do not have security. They can be turfed out for no good reason and have to pay the cost that you have alluded to.
The Government said previously that it was going to end section21 evictions. It was consulting on this, and I am concerned that a delay will lead to it changing its mind. It is not a stunt. It will hugely improve the quality of life for tenants and the sooner it happens the better.

Tom Copley: Thank you. Yes, I agree and I have experienced this myself. In one flat I was living in, every year you would be served a section21 eviction and told what next year’s rent was going to be, take it or leave it. I do not think that is a particularly good way to be treating private tenants.
Do you think it is important, as well as abolishing section21, that we need a package of measures for private tenants - who, let us remember, are living in one of the most insecure parts of the housing market - and that it should also include things like open-ended tenancies and the package of rent control that you have been advocating but which would require the Government to devolve powers to CityHall in order for you to implement?

Sadiq Khan: Absolutely. There are two parts of the equation, in simple terms. One is genuine security of tenure, and the second is to have affordable and predictable rents. What the Government needs to do, rather than this piecemeal approach to the private rental market, abolishing letting agent’s fees and hopefully getting rid of section21 evictions, is to look at the whole private rented sector. It simply will not be possible, in the short to medium term, to build the homes we need to address the housing crisis, so in the meantime it should address the issue of the exorbitant cost of renting in London. One way of doing that would be to look at the London model we have worked out, work with the Government, set up the commission, and then we can get going so that we can get in London rents not going up hugely, as they have been doing, but being stabilised and then going down.

Tom Copley: Thank you very much, Mr Mayor.

Brexit impact on Supply Chains for Construction

Nicky Gavron: Apart from the impact on skills and workforce, what will the impact of Brexit be on and construction supply chains generally and building materials for homes? What can London can do?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. As I and many others have long warned, a no-deal Brexit will be a disaster for homebuilding in London. We know that the capital’s homebuilding industry, from architects designing the homes to construction workers making them a reality, relies heavily on EU nationals. We also know that the UK is particularly reliant on imported building materials with almost two thirds of imports being from Europe. The imposition of new tariffs, a weaker pound and new costs and delays for goods clearing customs will cause build costs to rise and significant disruption to supply chains.
Even ahead of Brexit, continued uncertainty about what will happen is already affecting the housing industry. Our housing association partners have reported that the value of tenders from large reputable builders have recently shot up in anticipation of our departure at the end of the month. This is due to increasing risk premiums, the cost of transport and warehousing and in some cases a predicted shortage of labour. Reduced availability of construction materials is another factor in a toxic mix. Builders will simply down tools if schemes become undeliverable. This will undermine London’s ability to meet its housing needs in the short term and will present longer-term obstacles for economic recovery.
I have already made £200million available to protect affordable homebuilding in the face of Brexit uncertainty and my officers will continue to work on other contingency plans.

Nicky Gavron: Thank you, MrMayor, for that answer. What you have been saying is generally reinforcing something that is not really known very much, which is how dependent we are on EU imports for construction of our buildings in London and of our homes in particular. You have said that somewhere between 60% and 70% of our supplies, products and materials come from the EU. That is glass. It is window frames. It is bricks. It is cement. It is steel. It is also electrical goods and components.
What is not so well known is how the EU is also responsible for the regulation, for the testing and for the setting of standards on products and materials. As you have highlighted, there will be, inevitably, whatever deal there is - or, even worse, no deal - there will be delays in terms of logistics. There will be tariffs and costs will go up.
Are you concerned and what can we do about the fact that construction companies will inevitably have to seek new supply chains outside of the EU and the result of this will probably be that there will be substandard and poor-quality products coming into the country?

Sadiq Khan: That is absolutely right. I have a few things. Firstly, the bad news is that developers are not able to stockpile materials. Some are stockpiling some stuff in warehousing, but it is not possible to stockpile some of this stuff.
You raised a really important point about standards. We know when goods come from the EU that they are of a certain standard. If, for example, as members of this Government are claiming, we should not worry because we can import stuff from other parts of the world, I question what standard they will be at. It is a big concern that many developers and builders have. We are working with developers. We are lobbying the Government to share with us the information it has.
One of the things that we have been lobbying the Government to do is to have an active industrial strategy to make up for some of the losses we may face in Brexit and that the active industrial strategy also goes towards homebuilding and affordable homebuilding in light of the fall in the sale of market value and luxury properties as well. It could be an opportunity. The problem is, if we cannot get materials, we cannot have an active industrial strategy and so we are hoping that cooler heads will prevail, there will not be no-deal Brexit and, if we do leave the EU, there will be a transition so that we can still have goods and materials coming into our country to build the homes we so desperately need.

Nicky Gavron: Thank you. From talking to the industry, they say that it is very well known, something you have also pointed out, what the impact of Brexit will be on the workforce, but what is not known - and in fact it seems to be an information desert, if you like, a national black hole - is anything about this issue of supply chains.
Apart from all the lobbying that needs to be done on the Government, working with industry partners, will you prioritise and lead on this issue and make it part of your Resilience Strategy?

Sadiq Khan: Sitting to your left is the Chair of the London Resilience Forum and we will make sure we take that up in the first meeting this Monday.
To give you an idea of the scale, more than 90% of our timber comes from the EU. A significant amount of our steel comes from the EU. As you will be aware, one the reasons I mentioned Tilbury Docks in answer to a previous question is that that is the way some of this comes. We will make sure it is raised at the Strategic Co-ordinating Group and also at the Resilience Forum.
It is your right. It is not just construction workers - and we are already concerned about construction workers - but also the materials we need for residential and commercial buildings as well.

Nicky Gavron: Thank you for that answer. Thank you, Chair.

Safer junctions for cyclists

Caroline Pidgeon: Are all junctions undergoing works by TfL compatible with your Vision Zero standard?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. Vision Zero is not a standard for designing a junction. Instead, it is my commitment that deaths and serious injuries will not be tolerated on our transport network. It is an utter tragedy that 103 people have lost their lives so far this year on the roads, including four people just last week. TfL and I are continuing to do everything possible to eliminate deaths and serious injuries from London’s transport network.
Early next year, 20-mile-per-hour speed limits will be brought into effect on TfL roads in central London and, soon after, enforcement of our world-leading Direct Vision Standard will begin. This will be on top of the tripling of safe space for cycling by next spring compared to the eight years of the previous administration, 900 buses with intelligent speed assistance, and 31 safer junctions that have been delivered so far.
Over 70% of all the collisions in London occur at a junction. My Safer Junctions Programme is taking an evidence-based approach, targeting the 73 junctions on the TfL road network where the greatest numbers of people have been killed or injured while walking, cycling or riding motorcycles. TfL are addressing specific safety risks at each junction but also creating a more pleasant and safe environment for walking and cycling. There has been an average reduction in collisions of nearly 30% across the safer junctions delivered so far.
Other junctions outside this programme, such as the Old Street roundabout, which is currently under construction, also contribute to road danger reduction by separating people walking and cycling from traffic. TfL designers consider a wide range of guidance when developing junction schemes, including the Healthy Streets check, the London Cycling Design Standards and Department for Transport (DfT) design guidance. For example, all projects undergo formal road safety audits at each stage of design and construction.
TfL is of course looking at what more it can do to reduce danger on our roads. This includes looking at where the perception of road danger is highest and bringing forward more holistic schemes to tackle some of the most high-risk parts of our road network.

Caroline Pidgeon: Thank you very much. I welcome the initiatives you have outlined there and your Vision Zero objective: by 2041 all deaths and serious injuries should be eliminated from our transport network.
However, are TfL’s actions really meeting this objective? I have here a 3,000-signature petition signed by the London Cycling Campaign (LCC) and handed to myself and other Assembly Members today expressing concerns about a number of recently changed junctions, junctions that have received serious investment from TfL, authorised by you. Do you really believe that every junction that TfL has recently invested in is meeting the standards and your ambition for Vision Zero and are fit for purpose?

Sadiq Khan: Can I say, Chair, and put on record? You have been extremely helpful in us reaching better standards. I am really happy to get my team to speak with you and the LCC. The LCC has been fantastic as well.
If you are concerned about particular junctions, you have been really helpful in the past. Please work with the team. I am happy for you to sit down with the team. There is a real can-do attitude there. If there is any criticism about junctions that have just been installed, let us know, but genuinely we are working incredibly hard and taking all advice from everyone to make sure that junctions are safe.
Each junction is different. That is what I would say. You cannot have a checklist approach. Continue to work with us. I am more than happy, Chair, to organise a meeting as soon as possible if there are particular junctions you are concerned about to make sure we sort them out before they are changed.

Caroline Pidgeon: The LCC highlights some of the recent improvements at junctions funded by TfL. They do not believe they are safe. TfL’s latest improved junctions include sites where we have seen recent fatal and serious collisions. Ludgate Circus has recently seen a fatality and a serious injury. The junction at Camberwell New Road and Brixton Road has also seen a serious injury.
Do you accept that junction standards by TfL need to be further improved and to get this right the first time; otherwise, you are going to face expensive retrospective investment?

Sadiq Khan: That should not be happening because, as I have said, we have seen a huge reduction in incidences where we have had the work done. There were 73 junctions earmarked for improvements, 31 are now completed and 43 are at the design and construction stage. As I said, at the design and construction phase, there are lots of road safety audits taking place in relation to those. There may be some that are not perfect, but they have led to massive improvements.
If it is the case that the LCC - which is fantastic on this stuff - or the AssemblyMember have concerns, speak to us. Some of the time it is balancing different vulnerable road users. It is not one against the other, but sometimes pedestrians take priority over cyclists and take priority over powered two-wheeled mopeds and motorcycles. We are keen to make sure we get it right.
I will just say this. A lot of the roads are not our roads and so it is about working with the councils. There are 210 schemes that are not ours but are councils’ and it is about meeting the councils’ concerns, objections and views as well. It is a difficult exercise but we want to get it right and so I am more than happy to address any concerns there may be.

Caroline Pidgeon: Thank you. This is all about saving lives and preventing serious injuries.

Sadiq Khan: Absolutely.

Caroline Pidgeon: You have raised there the issue of London boroughs. Will you review some of the Local Implementation Plan (LIP) payments to boroughs if their plans fall short of your Vision Zero safety standards?

Sadiq Khan: We will and the AssemblyMember will know that we did so in relation to cycleways. If you remember the concern, a concern that you had and others, including the LCC, had was questioning the quality of cycle schemes that are funded. With the excellent work of Will Norman [Mayor of London's Walking & Cycling Commissioner] we now have clear criteria for schemes we will fund. Similarly, if it is the case that any funding we give through LIP money or other money from TfL is going to a borough scheme that does not meet the safety standards we want, of course we are not going to fund those. Again, if there is information that you have, please work with us to make sure we get that right.
I hope boroughs want to do the right thing. You will know there are some boroughs that are an absolute nightmare to work with and do not appear to care about pedestrians or cyclists. We want to make sure we persuade them do the right thing.

Caroline Pidgeon: Yes. Thank you very much. I look forward to meeting with your team and the LCC further on some of these junctions, but we do want to strive for perfection, whether it is a TfL road or a borough road.

Sadiq Khan: Indeed.

Caroline Pidgeon: Thank you very much, MrMayor.

Impact of the HS2 review

Onkar Sahota: Given the uncertainty caused by the recent HS2 review, how can we work to ensure that we ultimately get an HS2 plan which works for London?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. On 3September [2019] the Secretary of State for Transport announced that each phase of High Speed 2 (HS2) is likely to be delayed by up to five years and that the costs have risen from £62billion to over £80billion, an increase in the budget of £18billion. Given this, I am supportive of the HS2 review looking at how savings can be made.
I have written to DougOakervee [CBE], the Chair of the review, setting out my support for the new capacity provided by HS2 and the issues pertinent to London. The review team also met with my Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills and the TfL Commissioner in September.
The terms of reference for the review referred to the possibility of services terminating at Old Oak Common. I set out the implications of this for the Elizabeth line. Termination of HS2 service at Old Oak would mean the Elizabeth line would be full by the time it reached central London, fundamentally undermining the benefits of the Elizabeth line, but even Euston’s current Tube connections will not be able to cope with a fully built HS2, which is why they need Crossrail2.
Similarly, if there is no Old Oak Common station then the Victoria and Northern lines will not be able to cope with the passenger demand at Euston. Having stations at Old Oak and Euston will ensure HS2 brings much-needed relief to many commuter lines into London by freeing up capacity and enabling more regional services from stations such as Watford Junction and Milton Keynes. HS2 will also regenerate large areas of London. The Opportunity Areas at Old Oak Common and Euston have the potential for 95,000 jobs and 27,000 homes. Without HS2, this growth would be at risk.
I suggested that the review team should look at the speed of the new service as a lower-speed scheme could deliver many of the benefits at a lower cost. Rather than speed the focus should instead be on creating new capacity, not least to provide relief to the existing crowded service out of Euston and King’s Cross. My team are continuing to work with the DfT and HS2 to support their considerations around how to reduce costs while still achieving the results that London needs.

Onkar Sahota: Thank you, Mr Mayor, for that answer. In July 2019 LizPeace[CBE], the Chair of the OPDC, said,
“If we do not have HS2 it would put a whole different complexion on what we can do at Old Oak, especially in the next ten to 20 years. In my personal view, it would probably set back the regeneration of that area of London by about 20 years.”
Do you agree with Liz that the current plans for Old Oak do not work if HS2 is cancelled?

Sadiq Khan: The Chair of OPDC is absolutely right. If the Government decides not to have a station at Old Oak we have to, in my view, re-look at the development at Old Oak Common because the jobs and the homes are contingent upon improved infrastructure. If there is no station there that leads to a limited improvement in infrastructure.

Onkar Sahota: Supposing the terminus becomes HS2 and it says Old Oak rather than Euston, what is the impact of that?

Sadiq Khan: No, we need both. As I said in my answer to your original question, Euston needs a new station there for a variety of reasons, including the Elizabeth line. One of the reasons we are concerned about the current Euston plans is that it would redevelop it all at the same time. We need Crossrail2 as well because any gains made from one line are lost unless we can improve capacity. My focus with HS2 is less on speed, more on the capacity increase. There should be a station at Euston and Old Oak Common. We cannot have one without the other.

Onkar Sahota: Great. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Black History Month and racial inequalities

Jennette Arnold: Does the Mayor agree with me that, as we come towards the end of another great Black History Month, it is unacceptable that the grandchildren of the Windrush generation in London who have graduated from university continue to experience higher unemployment and lower pay than white graduates?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Deputy Chairman. It is unacceptable that a person’s family background can have an impact on their employment opportunities. I am determined to do all I can to make London’s labour market more accessible and fairer for everyone. There are high rates of graduate unemployment and underemployment for black Londoners. We also know there are challenges that minority ethnic Londoners experience when trying to enter and progress in the labour market.
These issues need to be tackled on multiple levels with targeted action. Through our Good Work Standard, we are supporting employers to ensure their recruitment practices give all potential employees a fair chance and to monitor and take action to close their ethnicity pay gaps. We have led by example on this at the GLA, publishing and acting on our own pay gap data.
We have launched the Workforce Integration Network (WIN) to specifically focus on the under-representation of young black men in the workforce, whom we know have one of the biggest employment gaps. This currently focuses on the sporting, digital and construction sectors to be more inclusive employers and is an important step in changing workplace cultures.
I am also working with higher education institutions to improve access, progression and retention levels for students from minority ethnic backgrounds. I have recently commissioned, Deputy Chairman, further research into the specific issue raised by AssemblyMemberArnold to better understand inequalities in degree classification and transitions to employment after higher education. We hope to report on this in spring 2020.
The steps before education and training are also essential. Without existing social or professional networks, it can be much harder for young Londoners to figure out their career paths and that is why we have expanded the HeadStart Programme to help bridge the gap between schools and employment.

Jennette Arnold: Thank you for that. Two days ago I was with some black elders, many of whom were part of the Windrush regeneration, and we were having a conversation. The first thing they said to me was to feed back to you how they welcomed your mayoralty and so, on their behalf, I will pass that on.
I was also saddened when I asked them what one of their biggest disappointments was. What they told me was that their grandchildren were still having to face the sorts of insidious forms of racism that they had faced and had challenged. They were hoping that in 2019 their grandchildren would be in a better place. When you look at the 2016 survey that was done by the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU), it is clear that on many of our university campuses racism is commonplace. When you meet the higher education principals, will this be at the top of your agenda?

Sadiq Khan: Firstly, thank you for your comments and your question. It will be.
Can I just say this? The elders will have said this to you, I am sure. My experience is that some of the language that you and I experienced in our younger years we thought had disappeared from the English language, but it has returned.

Jennette Arnold: Yes.

Sadiq Khan: That is why we must never be complacent and always be vigilant about racism. The P word, the N word and the Y word we thought had disappeared from the English language but are now being used again. There has been a spike in hate crime. Also, it affects attitudes. There can be unconscious bias in recruitment practices, universities and places of work, but also in how people are treated.
One of the reasons why we introduced last year DebbieWeekes-Bernard [Deputy Mayor for Social integration, Social Mobility and Community Engagement] at the slavery commemoration event was to understand the legacy of not just slavery but some of the consequences of how the British Empire was resolved. You talked about the Windrush generation. We have to be alive to the institutional racism that exists in all major institutions and we are conscious of this, I reassure you.
Whenever I have conversations not just with universities and Further Education [FE] colleges but also with employers, I am keen to remind them that we should see ourselves as a beacon for the rest of the world and that includes in relation to discrimination, direct and indirect. I am always vigilant. Also, I reassure you that in the conversations I have with global CEOs and vice-chancellors, I talk about all Londoners having the opportunities and the helping hand that you and I had.

Jennette Arnold: Thank you very much. Can you let me know in writing how you are getting on with the WIN initiative that has supported 200 young black men into employment opportunities? I would welcome that in writing, please.

Sadiq Khan: Absolutely.

Jennette Arnold: Thank you very much.